BICOM

 

Key points 

• During last week’s visit to London, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had expected to focus his discussions on the Palestinian push for UN recognition in September. However, the surprising reconciliation deal between Fatah and Hamas became the main focus of the visit.
• Differences remain in the British and Israeli positions on Palestinian reconciliation. Israel sees the involvement of Hamas, with its current positions, in the new government as an impassable obstacle to a renewed peace process.
• Britain insists unambiguously that Hamas commit to the Quartet principles. But with the implementation of reconciliation still in its early stages, the UK is adopting a more cautious ‘wait and see’ approach.
• British policymakers have increased and deepened their appreciation of Israel’s security concerns, but would prefer an Israeli stance which admits at least the possibility of some positive developments emerging from Palestinian unity.

 

Context of the visit

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week conducted an official visit to the United Kingdom. In the course of the visit, Netanyahu had his first official meeting with Prime Minister David Cameron since the latter’s election. Originally, the visit was intended to focus on the prospect of a Palestinian attempt to secure UN backing for an independent declaration of statehood in September. The unexpected announcement of a Palestinian reconciliation agreement, however, dramatically changed the focus of the visit.

The visit provides an opportunity to ascertain the common ground and differences between Britain and Israel’s positions on Palestinian political developments and the peace process. Britain and Israel are divided on a number of issues, including Israel’s settlement policy and the handling of the diplomatic process with the Palestinians. Despite these differences, HMG have recently expressed real, deep and growing understanding for Israel’s security concerns. This was reflected in PM Cameron’s remarks prior to meeting Netanyahu last week, in Foreign Secretary William Hague‘s Chatham House speech on 30 March, and in Ambassador Matthew Gould‘s article in Yediot Ahronot, which coincided with Netanyahu’s visit to London. Striking this balance is crucial to maintaining Britain’s unique position in Middle East diplomacy.

In his remarks prior to his meeting with Cameron, Netanyahu sounded pessimistic regarding the chances for rapid diplomatic progress with the Palestinians. He spoke of a ‘great struggle’ under way in the region between ‘the forces of democracy and moderation and the forces of tyranny and terror.’ This regional context is important because there is widespread concern in Israel at the role of Egypt in the process of reconciliation, and specifically at the growing ties between Egypt and Hamas.

The Palestinian reconciliation announcement blurred some of the differences between Israel and the UK. Real policy differences still remain, but they seem to increasingly focus on tenor rather than concrete policy: while the government of Israel sees the ‘half-empty glass’ vis-a-vis Palestinian reconciliation, the UK government appears more inclined to see it as half full.

Unilateral Palestinian moves

Britain is considered a key ‘swing state’ in a possible vote on Palestinian statehood in the UN General Assembly. For this reason, both Israelis and Palestinians are eager to garner British support. The core Israeli case is that a unilateral move of this kind would undermine negotiations and any chance of a negotiated solution. Although there is general agreement with this Israeli position, its impact is diminished by scepticism towards the commitment of the current Israeli government to negotiations.

It appears that Britain has yet to decide whether to endorse a Palestinian unilateral declaration in September. A report in the Guardian suggestedthat Cameron told Netanyahu in their private meeting that ‘Britain’s clear and absolute preference is for a negotiation to take place between Israel and the Palestinians, which leads to a two state solution which everyone endorses. But at this point Britain is not ruling anything out. The more Israel engages seriously in a meaningful peace process the less likely it is that this question of unilateral declaration would arise.’ This statement suggests that Britain regards its September vote as one of the few ‘levers’ it possesses to unblock the diplomatic logjam between Israel and the Palestinians.

EU votes will be crucial in September. If key European countries vote against or abstain, the smaller EU states are likely to follow suit. Russia and China also have their own concerns regarding unilateral declarations of statehood.

Palestinian reconciliation

In media statements, Netanyahu focused on the Palestinian unity declaration, which he described as ‘a tremendous blow to peace and a great victory for terrorism.’ Dismissing the assumption that Hamas has in some way changed its path, Netanyahu noted that Hamas leaders expressed regret at the killing of Al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin-Laden.

Similar views were expressed by former British prime minister Tony Blair in a recent interview: ‘I think the reaction of the Israeli government is perfectly understandable given that Hamas have still been targeting innocent civilians and trying to kill them, and especially after the remarks of [Hamas PM Ismail] Haniyeh about Bin Laden.’

Netanyahu’s uncompromising position on Hamas was partly intended to set a strict benchmark for the international community. Fearing that others may seek a more compromising tone, Netanyahu sought to convey an unambiguous message that rejects any engagement with a designated terror organisation.

It is noteworthy that PM Cameron did not mention the Palestinian reconciliation deal in his public remarks with Netanyahu. The impression gained was that the British government is still in the process of formulating its response to Fatah-Hamas reconciliation. Central to this policy is Britain’s effort to avoid measures that would obstruct Palestinian political unity on the one hand, while not allowing these developments to close the door to bilateral Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy.

In Parliament, PM Cameron had seemed to take a cautiously optimistic view regarding the Palestinian reconciliation agreement: ‘We have to take the positive, optimistic view that although there will be all sorts of difficulties in the days ahead, Palestinian unity between Fatah and Hamas should be a step forward, and we must make sure that it is.’

But the British Government remains committed to international prerequisites for Hamas. Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office Alistair Burt stated clearly that ‘We have no plans to change our position on Hamas. The Quartet principles…remain the benchmark to which Hamas should move towards-that is, a rejection of violence, a recognition of the state of Israel and an acceptance of previous agreements.’

The Palestinians may still seek an administrative solution to bypass the West’s refusal to deal with Hamas. In 2007, Hamas and Fatah formed a unity government that was comprised of technocrats and was not affiliated politically. This was a way of bypassing the international boycott of Hamas as long as the movement refused to accept the quartet principals. A similar government may be formed in the coming months, though it is unclear whether such a professional body could withstand the political and ideological infighting between Fatah and Hamas.

Britain’s position reflects a desire to ensure positive momentum where possible without ignoring increasingly difficult realities. The crucial question of future security arrangements, for example, has not yet been clarified. The extent to which Hamas will cede real power in Gaza has also not been clarified. It is quite possible that the Palestinian move towards unity will yet founder on these details. As long as these questions remain unanswered, British policy is also likely to develop and adjust. For the current government in Jerusalem, ambiguity is not an option at this stage.

Conclusion: neither triumph nor disaster

If PM Netanyahu was seeking a full ‘meeting of minds’ with PM Cameron during his visit, this objective appears to have eluded him. Clear differences remain. Whatever the precise details of the British stance on Palestinian unilateralism, there is some impatience with Israel’s position on the Israeli-Palestinian diplomatic process. The UK is frustrated at the firmness of Israel’s stance, and the sense that Jerusalem sees no positive side to renewed Palestinian unity.

At the same time, Britain appears to be holding firm to the insistence that Hamas adhere to Quartet principles. The sense is that London understands Israel’s concerns regarding Hamas, and has no intention of abandoning its commitments in this regard. The British position is therefore still dependent on events: where possible, Britain seeks to promote and support positive movement but its policies remain firmly rooted in Quartet principles.