What’s happened: Foreign Ministers of 29 countries, including the UK, issued a joint statement yesterday on the situation in Gaza and the West Bank calling for an immediate end to the war and castigating Israel for the humanitarian situation in Gaza as well as for settlement activity in the West Bank.
- Also yesterday, Foreign Secretary David Lammy spoke to Parliament about the situation in the Middle East, emphasising many of the same points made in the joint statement. In his comments, he referenced signing the statement with “31 Foreign Ministers,” a possible indication that some countries might have backed out at the last minute.
- Lammy’s statement began with a short update on the situation in Syria, which condemned the violence in as-Suwayda this past week but studiously avoided taking sides.
- The rest of his comments were devoted to the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Regarding the war in Gaza, Lammy’s position was clear: “The war in Gaza must end now. There is no military solution. Negotiations will secure the hostages. Further bloodshed serves no purpose. Hamas and Israel must both commit to a ceasefire now, and the next ceasefire must be the last ceasefire.”
- The comments ended with a summary of actions taken by the Government on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in its year in office. Whether deliberately or not, the list of actions was decidedly unbalanced: restored UNRWA funding, suspended arms licences for Israel, humanitarian assistance for the Palestinians, sanctions packages on settlers, suspended trade negotiations with Israel, sanctions on far-right Israeli ministers, defences of international courts prosecuting Israel and Israeli leaders, and a “landmark agreement with the Palestinian Authority.”
- Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued a statement rejecting the joint statement, not just for its content but also for “sending the wrong message to Hamas” that international pressure on Israel could yield the benefits Hamas seeks more effectively than agreeing to release hostages. The joint statement, according to the Israeli MFA, “fails to focus the pressure on Hamas and fails to recognise Hamas’s role and responsibility for the situation. Hamas is the sole party responsible for the continuation of the war and the suffering on both sides.”
- US Ambassador to Israel reacted to the joint statement on X stating: “Disgusting! 25 nations put pressure on Israel instead of savages of Hamas! Gaza suffers for 1 reason: Hamas rejects EVERY proposal. Blaming Israel is irrational.”
Context: Lammy told Parliament that “we are striving to keep open the prospects of a two-state solution,” and two sentences later boasted of restoring funding to UNRWA, seemingly without noticing the contradiction between the two positions. UNRWA is the agency that maintains the “refugee” status of Palestinians born in Palestinian territory living under Palestinian government.
- Funding UNRWA doesn’t open the prospect of a two-state solution; it entrenches the Palestinian fantasy that justice can only be served when Palestinians can “return” to Israel and undo the existence of a Jewish state. The Palestinian demand for “return,” and not any Israeli insistence on settlements, was what torpedoed final status talks in all three rounds of negotiations that were held (2000-1, 2007-8, 2013-4).
- Indeed, the gaps between the Israeli and Palestinian positions on which settlement areas would be evacuated and which annexed to Israel in territorial swaps were comparatively tiny and inconsequential to negotiations. But nothing in the joint statement nor in Lammy’s comments to Parliament yesterday addresses why there wasn’t a Palestinian state created in 2000 or 2008 (or for that matter 1948).
- The claims about the controversial construction plan known as E1 are equally incoherent. The joint statement says that “the E1 settlement plan, if implemented, would divide a Palestinian state in two,” which is bad math and bad geography. A potential Palestinian state is already divided into two non-contiguous territories (Gaza Strip and West Bank).
- Lammy’s statement is a bit clearer on the math, but just as muddled on the geography, claiming that E1 “would separate the West Bank’s north from its south,” but a glance at a map shows that this is entirely untrue, with the entire Jericho corridor still open (and the existing Israeli settlement of Maaleh Adumim still the easternmost area of Israeli settlement in the Jerusalem area).
- If it were true that E1 could prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, then it would behove supporters of such a state to press the Palestinians to act now and do what they refused to do in each previous round of negotiations, namely make peace with Israel. Nothing in either the joint statement or Lammy’s comments reckons with Palestinian decision making or preferences or even treats the Palestinian side of the conflict as an actor making decisions and shaping events.
- Nowhere is this more apparent than in the discussion of the hostages. Both the joint statement and Lammy’s speech to Parliament address the continued captivity of Israelis abducted during the massacre of October 7 as something that can only be addressed by “negotiations,” a stark contrast to their claims regarding Israel’s supposed obligations on aid or territory.
- “A negotiated ceasefire offers the best hope of bringing them home and ending the agony of their families,” is the way the joint statement addresses the issue, implying that Israel’s failure to meet the ransom demands of their captors is true moral failure, and not the abduction itself. Lammy goes even further in blaming Israel’s leader for the hostages’ plight: “This offensive puts them in grave danger, but still Netanyahu persists.”
- In contrast, nothing in both statements implies that “negotiations” could secure aid for Gazans or stop Israel’s military offensive. These are presented as things that simply must happen without conditions and which the UK and other countries are prepared to take affirmative action to pressure Israel on.
- If there is any action which the UK Government or Foreign Secretary Lammy have taken to put pressure on the hostage takers or the allied countries who host Hamas leaders, it went unmentioned in both statements. On the contrary, Qatar is singled out for praise in both statements, and Turkey is never referenced at all.
- Another point that is missed in the calls for “negotiations” as the only means for liberating hostages is that negotiations are ongoing and have been ongoing for quite some time. As the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs response to the joint statement notes, “there is a concrete proposal for a ceasefire deal, and Israel has repeatedly said yes to this proposal, while Hamas stubbornly refuses to accept it.”
- In every version of a proposed agreement, Israel has been willing to pay an exorbitant ransom — in released terrorists, territorial withdrawals, and more — for even partial hostage releases. And despite the implication of both statements that Israel’s position hasn’t allowed for an agreement, it is the Israeli position, not Hamas’, that has considerably moderated in recent weeks along several key points of dispute.
- The statement also criticises the allegedly “dangerous” mechanism for aid delivery. However the work of the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation is designed to circumvent Hamas expropriation of aid, that further perpetuates its control of the Strip. Earlier this week the GHF announced that it delivers around two million meals a day, and 82 million since it began.
Looking ahead: Lammy’s statement yesterday reaffirmed the UK’s commitment to a two-state solution without any reckoning with why that solution has not yet been effected on the ground. Moreover, it pledged the UK Government to a number of policies which make the establishment of Palestinian state next to Israel almost impossible.
- “Hamas and Israel must both commit to a ceasefire now, and the next ceasefire must be the last ceasefire,” according to Lammy. This is a demand to end the war with Hamas still in control of the Gaza Strip. No path to statehood exists with the Palestinian Territories governed by two competing governments, one of them a jihadist terrorist organisation. And no path to peace exists with Hamas still standing, newly legitimised by the international community, and regrouping and mobilising for the next October 7.
- Funding for UNRWA is not funding for a Palestinian state, but rather funding against one. An investment in the refugee status of Palestinians in Palestinian territory does nothing for the upbuilding of a future state; it only ensures another generation of irredentism, rejectionism, and war.


