BICOM

Key points

• The motion lends support to the Palestinian campaign for unilateral recognition, which is being pursued as an alternative to engaging in final status negotiations.
• The motion does not change British Government policy, but the debate reflected increasing frustration with the current Israeli government.
• The decision by the Labour leadership to back the motion and turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a wedge issue – which divided the Shadow Cabinet – cannot be seen outside of the context of a looming general election, and Labour’s interests in attracting Muslim and other left-wing voters.
• Whilst the vote received a relatively low key response by the Israeli government it was prominently covered in the Israeli media, with opposition leader Isaac Herzog saying that it represented a failure of the Netanyahu government.

What was passed?

The House of Commons passed a backbench resolution stating: “This House believes that the government should recognise the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel” with an amendment tabled by former Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw which added: “as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution”.

This motion was promoted by pro-Palestinian backbench MPs from four different parties, and was tabled by Labour Friends of Palestine Chair Grahame Morris. The topic was eligible for tabling having been backed by 100,000 signatories to an e-petition.

By calling for recognition of Palestine outside the context a negotiated agreement with Israel, the motion lends support to the Palestinian campaign for unilateral recognition. PA President Mahmoud Abbas justifies this campaign by claiming that negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian as currently configured are a waste of time due to Israeli intransigence. The Palestinians have been pursuing this unilateral strategy since the 2009, whilst largely avoiding final status negotiations with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The resolution passed with 274 in favour and 12 opposed, out of a total of 650 MPs. The odds were stacked in the proponents favour due to the fact by convention all ministers and PPS’s do not vote on backbench motions, accounting for 111 MPs. The motion’s opponents therefore preferred to abstain, and thereby reduce the significance of the vote, rather than fight a losing battle to secure a majority against it. An amendment proposed by pro-Israel MPs to add that recognition should follow a negotiated agreement was dropped when it was clear they would not get a majority to pass it, and as a protest by pro-Israel Conservatives against Labour imposing a whip on their MPs and allowing their frontbench to vote.

Ultimately, 193 out of 257 Labour MPs voted in favour, 39 out of 303 Conservatives, and 39 out of 56 Liberal Democrats.

What are the implications for British policy?

The motion does not change British policy. It is non-binding and simply expresses the views of those MPs which voted for it. Middle East Minister Tobias Ellwood reiterated during the debate that “The UK will recognise a Palestinian state at a time most helpful to the peace process, because a negotiated end to the occupation is the most effective way for Palestinian aspirations of statehood to be met on the ground.” Even Labour, which backed the motion, interpreted it in a way that would not bind their hand were they to enter government, with Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander writing that the motion “does not commit Labour to immediate recognition of Palestine.”

However, British Ambassador to the UK Matthew Gould took the opportunity to warn Israelis that the resolution, whilst not changing UK policy, was reflective of a shift in opinion away from Israel, which caused him concern. He told an Israeli interviewer “The conflict in Gaza over the summer, the announcement on settlements since the summer, have had a big impact. And I think that this parliamentary vote is a sign of the way that the wind is blowing in public opinion.”

What does the development indicate about British domestic politics and Israel?

In the week before the debate, Labour leader Ed Miliband and Shadow Foreign Secretary Douglas Alexander decided to require Labour MPs to vote in favour. This follows Labour’s reaction to the recent Gaza conflict in which Miliband and Alexander fervently attacked the government and David Cameron personally for not taking a tougher stance against Israel. The attempt by Labour to turn the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a wedge issue cannot be seen outside of the context of a looming general election, in which left-wing and Muslim voters – two sectors for whom the Palestinian cause resonates – will be important for Labour’s election hopes.

The Labour leadership decision split Labour’s front bench, as several shadow cabinet members opposed the party getting behind a pro-Palestinian motion and shifting policy away from the primacy on a negotiated solution. Ultimately the leadership accepted a compromise in which shadow ministers who disagreed with the motion were allowed to stay away from the debate and not vote at all, without sanction. Labour shadow cabinet members who did not vote include Ed Balls, Michael Dugher, Jim Murphy, Ivan Lewis, Tristram Hunt and Rachel Reeves. The amendment which introduced a reference to a negotiated agreement clearly did not meet their concerns.

What does the debate tell us about attitudes towards the issue in the UK?

Though most MPs did not participate in the debate or vote, the turnout and interest was considerable. Some 43 MPs spoke in a debate lasting over four hours. This reflects the unusually high level of saliency for a foreign policy issue in which the UK is not directly involved and which it has no immediate stake.

The debate reflected the fact that a consensus in favour of a two-state solution and the legitimacy of Israel’s existence remains strong, but that levels of frustration and impatience with the current Israeli government are growing. Long-standing opponents of Israel are finding an opportune moment to press their position, in the wake of a very bloody conflict in the Gaza Strip, Israeli announcements advancing settlement plans, and with the latest suspension of US brokered final status talks.

Labour MPs with long track records of pro-Palestinian activism made predictable interventions, some of them resorting to accusations of apartheid, and even ethnic cleansing. One Conservative MP invoked the accusation that an excessively powerful American Jewish lobby was part of the problem. However, even some long-standing supporters of Israel, such as Conservative MP Richard Ottaway, and Labour MP Michael Gapes spoke in favour of the motion, referring to their lack of confidence in the current Israeli government.

Israel’s supporters in the house sought to refute some of the accusations, and highlight the threats posed by Palestinian Islamists. Labour MP Louise Ellman pointed out PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s failure to respond to a recent US a framework document which was accepted by the Israeli side. Meanwhile Conservative MP James Clappison argued that both sides need to make compromises to resolve the conflict and expressed the concern that “unilateral recognition of the Palestinian state – by encouraging one party to walk away from negotiations, would put off that day.”

How has the vote been received in Israel?

The vote has received considerable press attention in Israel, but a relatively low key response by the Israeli government, which seeks to play down the significance of the vote. The Israeli Embassy in London issues a statement, saying that “Premature international recognition sends a troubling message to the Palestinian leadership that they can evade the tough choices that both sides have to make,” whilst deputy Foreign Minister Tzahi Hanegbi told Army Radio: “This was basically a kind of attempt, a fairly successful attempt, by the Labour Party to embarrass David Cameron.”

However, an unnamed Israeli diplomat quoted by Ma’ariv expressed concerns that Israel was “waging a veritable defensive-holding battle against initiatives [to impose] economic sanctions and others against Israel” and that this was escalating from civil society to parliaments and governments. The vote was linked by many in Israel to the recent announcement by the Swedish government of plans to recognise Palestine, and wider attempt by EU countries to increase pressure over settlements.

Israeli opposition leader Isaac Herzog made the case in TV and radio interviews that the resolution represented a failure of Netanyahu and his government. Some left wing activists, including former Meretz ministers, actively welcomed the vote in a letter, though they represent a small minority.