Labour’s Palestine policy is a barrier to peace

Of course things are better than under Corbyn. The Labour leader and his colleagues now meet Israeli politicians and attend events organised by Labour Friends of Israel, but large parts of the party continue to single Israel out for criticism and hold it to standards never applied to other countries and this needs to be dealt with as well.

Last month saw the publication of the full draft policy platform that could form the 2024 Labour manifesto.

There is still a lengthy process involving local parties, trade unions and socialist societies and wider consultation with businesses, charities and pressure groups, but the party says the document will “inform Labour’s policy proposals ahead of the next general election”.
The section on Britain in the World promises to make national security the party’s priority, along with a closer relationship with the EU, strong support for Ukraine, a tougher stance on Russia and Putin, and a clear-eyed approach to China. It promises new approaches on international trade, asylum and refugees, and international development.

The document mentions Sudan, which is not surprising given the civil war that was waging at the time it was published.

Aside from all that, out of 200 land-based disputes around the world, dozens of countries ravaged by civil war or blighted by other humanitarian disasters, just two issues are mentioned. One is Kashmir, on which the party is trying to restore the even-handed bipartisan approach it held for decades before Corbyn’s leadership.

There are no prizes for guessing the other.

The document has nothing to say on Iran. Nothing to say on the dictatorship’s support for terrorism, its nuclear weapons programme or role in causing carnage across the region — let alone its appalling human rights record. It is silent too on the civil war in Syria and the world’s worst humanitarian catastrophe in Yemen.

But it does have almost 100 words about Israel and Palestine.

The document promises to “support the recognition of the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel, as part of efforts to contribute to securing a negotiated two-state solution”. This policy dates back almost a decade when Ed Miliband’s leadership paved the way for Corbyn, who promised Palestine would be recognised on day one of a Labour government.
This means it remains the party’s policy to recognise a Palestinian state before or during peace negotiations, instead of as a result of their successful conclusion.

I have campaigned for a two-state solution with a Palestinian state living peacefully alongside Israel for 40 years, but this raises all sorts of questions.

What exactly would the UK recognise? Would it be a Palestinian state in the West Bank or in Gaza as well? If both, would it negotiate with Hamas? Would it expect unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the new Palestinian state when it is declared and before any peace agreement?

What action would the UK take if Israel did not withdraw? What guarantees would Israel be given on security and how would these be negotiated?

What would be the status of Jerusalem and what would the new state’s borders be?

Obviously they would be based on the pre-1967 borders but how would settlements be dealt with?

Israel has been willing since the 1980s to withdraw settlements and did so in Gaza in 2005, for example, but it has also been agreed for decades that a peace deal would recognises settlement blocks near the border and include land swaps and leases, for example, so how would these be negotiated?

Even if it is possible to deal with all that, the biggest problem with the policy is that it is actually counterproductive. Far from advancing a peace process, it is a barrier to it, because it tells the Palestinians that there is a route to statehood that can be achieved without the hard work of negotiation, compromise and concession.

Under the right circumstances, majorities on both sides still support a two-state solution, so Labour’s policy should be to do all it can to promote direct negotiations and build trust, instead of one-sided and simplistic positions which would make the situation worse.