This Is How Britain Devotes Its Efforts to Spare ‘Israel’ From Any International Punishment

British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly and Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen agreed to a new Strategic Partnership Agreement, which was signed in London on March 21, 2023, ahead of the visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which took place on March 24.

As part of the new roadmap between the two countries, the U.K. government refused to use the term apartheid to describe Israeli treatment of the Palestinians and vowed to confront anti-“Israel” bias in international institutions, including the United Nations Human Rights Council.

The agreement angered British MPs, who directed inquiries to the government of Rishi Sunak regarding the Israeli government and the extremist statements of its ministers regarding the extermination of the Palestinians, in addition to the absence of the two-state solution clause in the road map agreement that was recently signed between Tel Aviv and London.

The roadmap is the culmination of efforts that began with signing a memo of understanding in November 2021 to work more closely over the next decade on internet, technology, trade, and defense, which formally elevated the U.K.’s relationship with “Israel” to a strategic partnership.

Last year, the U.K. and “Israel” launched negotiations on a new free trade agreement, focusing on innovation to advance the trading relationship.

 

Mutual Interests

The signing of the Roadmap 2030 for bilateral relations between the U.K. and “Israel” was announced in London recently, which aims to deepen economic, security, and technological ties between the two countries and the geopolitical issues facing the region, including Iranian influence.

The agreement was signed by British Foreign Secretary James Cleverly and Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen.

Commenting after the signing ceremony, Cleverly said: “As we approach the 75th anniversary of U.K.–Israel relations, our Roadmap will allow us to fully take advantage of the opportunities in areas of mutual interest, including tech, science, research, development, security, health and climate.”

The British Foreign Secretary noted that “the relationship between the U.K. and Israel has already provided significant benefits for both economies. Our business relationship is worth around £7 billion, and there are more than 400 Israeli technology companies operating in the U.K.”

“Israeli investment in the U.K. drives growth and jobs, adding around £1 billion in total value to the U.K. economy and creating around 16,000 jobs in the last eight years,” he added.

As Cleverly said: “Britain and Israel will stand defiantly together against Iran’s malign influence in the region, and against the epidemic of anti-Semitism.”

As Chair of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2024, the U.K. will promote fact-based knowledge about the Holocaust and promote media and information literacy.

The agreement included a commitment to address the disproportionate focus on “Israel” in the United Nations and other international bodies, including attempts to delegitimize it or deny it the right to self-defense.

The agreement also stated that “the U.K. and Israel will work together to tackle the singling out of Israel in the Human Rights Council as well as in other international bodies. In this context, the U.K. and Israel disagree with the use of the term ‘apartheid’ with regard to Israel.”

In recent years, a number of human rights organizations, including B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International, have determined, following similar statements by Israeli and Palestinian activists, that the term can be applied to the situation in “Israel” and the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Last year, Michael Lynk, the U.N.’s special rapporteur for human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, who reports to the Human Rights Council, said in a report that the treatment of Palestinians satisfies the prevailing evidentiary standard for the existence of apartheid.

The deal added that the U.K. opposed a U.N. General Assembly request to the International Court of Justice for an opinion on Israeli actions in the occupied Palestinian territories, saying that it undermines the efforts to achieve a settlement through direct negotiations between the parties, which remains the only viable path to a lasting peace.

The U.K. government also expressed its opposition to Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions campaigns, in a clear reference to the boycott movement that seeks to pressure “Israel” to comply with international law in the occupied territories.

 

Embarrassing Situation

In contrast to the resonant meetings he has had with Western leaders and allies since his arrival in Downing Street last October, PM Rishi Sunak held his meeting with his Israeli counterpart, Benjamin Netanyahu, on March 24, 2023, behind closed doors, after he told reporters at the last minute that they could not attend the meeting.

Netanyahu shook hands with Sunak at the entrance to Downing Street while hundreds of protesters could be heard nearby, chanting, “Netanyahu go to jail, you can’t speak for Israel.”

Last week, Sunak was subjected to pressure, criticism, and a demand to cancel his invitation to Netanyahu, against the background of the crisis related to the judicial amendments and the deep divisions in the Netanyahu government.

Although the British PM did not cancel his first meeting with a senior Israeli government official since taking office, he canceled the press conference that was scheduled until the morning of March 24 in order to avoid embarrassment from taking or not taking a position.

Also, the press release issued by Sunak’s office after the meeting was brief and cautious and only highlighted the broad headlines of the meeting, such as the agreement to sign the British–Israeli Road Map 2030 this week.

A spokesman for Sunak said that during the meeting with Netanyahu, the PM stressed the importance of adhering to democratic values, which are the basis of relations between the two countries, including the proposed judicial amendments in “Israel.”

After the meeting, Netanyahu’s office said his conversation with Sunak centered on the Iranian nuclear threat and that he thanked the British PM for his stance on the issue. The Israeli statement did not mention any discussion with Sunak about the government’s controversial plan for judicial reform.

In an opinion article published by The Independent newspaper on March 24, 2023, Shawan Jabarin, Director General of Al-Haq, a Palestinian human rights organization, confirmed that “the welcome of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu by Rishi Sunak is not only disappointing, but an act to whitewash his and his government’s crimes.”

Jabarin also referred to Britain’s obstruction of the Palestinian people’s attempt to seek justice in the courts.

“Recently, Britain and 25 other countries opposed a U.N. resolution calling on the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to give an advisory opinion on the legality and consequences of the prolonged Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, as Britain led calls for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate Russian war crimes in Ukraine,” he said.

Jabarin concluded by saying: “We ask Britain and other countries to act in accordance with their obligations, to work to hold Israel accountable, and not to be selective when it comes to international law.”

 

Britain’s Responsibility

In an impeachment session under the dome of the British Parliament, several MPs asked British Minister Anne-Marie Trevelyan questions about the Netanyahu government, including: Why did the U.K.–“Israel” bilateral roadmap fail to mention the two-state solution? Does Sunak’s government still support the two-state solution? Does the U.K. deplore the current escalation of violence?

The MPs, who include MPs Bambos Charalambous and Anum Qaisar, said: “We are deeply concerned that the recently signed roadmap for bilateral relations between the U.K. and Israel weakens the U.K.’s long-established positions, which have been adopted by successive governments in relation to international law.”

They noted that “the roadmap does not indicate support for a two-state solution, and it implies that settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories can be treated as part of Israel for trade purposes.”

MPs asked the minister: “Can the minister tell parliament whether the roadmap amounts to a change in British policy?”

The MPs also mentioned the comments of right-wing extremists, including the Israeli Finance Minister, Bezalel Smotrich, about the extermination of the Palestinian town of Hawara, the denial of the existence of the Palestinian people, and the continuation of systematic and deliberate discrimination against Palestinians in the occupied territories.

On his part, the Palestinian ambassador to the United Nations, Hussam Zomlot, considered that the 2030 road map agreement for bilateral relations represents the U.K.’s abdication of its responsibilities towards international law and towards the Palestinian cause, pointing out that rewarding “Israel” with commercial, tech and security relations sends the wrong message at the wrong time.

In the same context, on March 24, 2023, Middle East Eye published an article by its editor, David Hearst, in which he said that “the British pro-Israel policy could lead to a third intifada in the occupied Palestinian territories.”

Hearst pointed out that British PM Rishi Sunak laid the red carpet for Benjamin Netanyahu, even in light of the extremist government’s threats to wipe out the Palestinians.

He pointed out that Britain is responsible for the creation of the Jewish-majority state and the fruition of the Zionist project. No other country bears more responsibility for expulsions, house demolitions, and illegal settlements that have gone on ever since Israel’s creation. The successors of the Foreign Office that issued the Balfour Declaration have another responsibility.”

Referring to Western double standards, Hearst said that “Britain responded to the war crimes in Ukraine by referring Russia to the ICC, which, under British pressure, issued a notice to arrest Putin.”

Britain’s response to the Israeli war crimes in Palestine was by opposing the investigation of the ICC and voting against a U.N. investigation into the roots of the conflict, as he added.