Our Position Paper on Palestine and Israel

Introduction: Summarising the position of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine (LDFP)

The Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine believe the Palestinian people have the right to live in an independent state of Palestine, just as the Israeli people have the right to live in the independent state of Israel, both based on the 1967 borders. To achieve that, Israel must end its illegal occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. We call on all party members to support this aim, both in principle and by the actions we take, and we actively lobby for it within Parliament and in the wider political sphere.

This position is in alignment with the core values of the Liberal Democrat Party, namely liberty, equality, democracy, community, human rights, and internationalism. We believe support for the aspirations – and rights – of the Palestinians is a very natural fit for our Party, and sits well with our work with our liberal allies at home and worldwide in calling for justice and peace for the Palestinian people.

We also recognise Britain’s special historic relationship with, and assurances given, to Palestine and the Palestinians. We believe this gives our country a particular responsibility to recognise a Palestinian state, to stand by the rights of its people and strive for a just and peaceful solution to the Palestine-Israel conflict.

To understand the long struggle of the Palestinians for independent statehood it is necessary to understand the history of the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, as well as certain developments post-1948 to the present. We will briefly outline these, then highlight some key factors that influence the current situation for Palestinians. Finally we review the Liberal Democrat Party’s opportunities and responsibilities to support Palestine, which inform the work of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine.

Background to the Creation of the State of Israel

Antisemitism & Nationalism in 19th & Early 20th Century Europe

Zionism, the movement to create a Jewish national homeland in Palestine, became a growing force among European Jews in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. At its core was a deep-rooted affection for the land of the Bible, the historical homeland of the Jews. And it was also inspired by an uneasy feeling that the 10 million Jews of Europe, especially those in Eastern Europe, were a vulnerable group for whom pogroms and persecution could easily happen again as they had so many times before and in many different European countries. The Dreyfus affair in France (1894-1906) showed that such fears were also all too justified in Western Europe too.

World War 1 & the Balfour Declaration

The Balfour Declaration of 1917 by the British Government promised Jews that Britain would use its best endeavours to facilitate “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people…. it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine (i.e. the overwhelmingly Arabic speaking majority). As the war progressed and the Ottoman Empire collapsed, Britain occupied the entirety of the land now known as Israel-Palestine, where a majority of Arabs lived peacefully alongside their Jewish neighbours. As the occupying power, Britain held legal responsibility for the region’s administration and for the welfare of its inhabitants.

Mandate Palestine

From 1923, Britain ruled Palestine under a mandate from the League of Nations that was predicated on the promise in the Balfour Declaration and included a clear obligation to “secure” the establishment of a homeland for Jews. However, it was also predicated on an obligation towards the Arabic speaking Muslim and Christian majority in Palestine, since the “well-being and development” of the people inhabiting the area of the mandate “form[ed] a sacred trust of civilisation which Britain was responsible to fulfil.” The existence of Palestine as an independent nation could therefore be “provisionally recognised subject to the tendering of administrative advice and assistance” by Britain “until such time as [its people] are able to stand alone”[1]

During the mandate, tensions between Jewish immigrants (largely Ashkenazis from Europe) and the Palestinian Arab majority steadily mounted. Although all the other former Ottoman territories which were put under mandates (Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria) were granted their own elected parliaments in the 1920s, and eventually proceeded to full independence, Britain refused to allow a parliament in Palestine because it would have reflected the wishes of the Arab majority, and in all likelihood ended the immigration necessary to establish the Jewish national home. During the 1930’s, a Palestinian revolt aimed at forcing Britain to end the mandate and grant Palestine independence was crushed by force. In 1939, Britain committed itself to making Palestine independent as a unitary state after ten years.

Israeli Independence and the Palestinian Nakba (Catastrophe) 1948

After World War Two and the Holocaust, hostilities deepened between Arabs and Jews in Palestine, and Britain found its occupying forces increasingly attacked by Jewish militias. Immediately after the war the USA and other countries were reluctant to accept Jewish refugees from Europe, and British troops under the then Labour Government had the shameful task of sending boat loads of emaciated refugees back to Europe as they tried to enter Palestine illegally.

Britain unilaterally relinquished its mandate in 1947 and its forces left Palestine in 1948 in some haste, amid the breakdown of law and order. The United Nations had approved a partition plan for Palestine in 1947 that proposed intertwined Jewish and Palestinian Arab states. The region’s other Arab states and those who claimed to speak on behalf of the Palestinian Arabs rejected it, although they were prepared to give the Jewish community in Palestine specific minority rights. The partition resolution was not legally binding (save for its termination of the British mandate), and the procedures envisaged for the establishment of the Jewish and Arab states in the partition plan were not followed.

The State of Israel was proclaimed at the moment the British mandate terminated by the leader of the Zionist Jews in Palestine, David Ben Gurion, who became Israel’s first Prime Minister. The war between Jews and Arabs that was necessary to secure the state of Israel was, in the words of Israeli historian Benny Morris, “the almost inevitable result of more than half a century of Arab-Jewish friction and conflict that began with the arrival…of the first Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe in the 1880s.”[2] At least forty per cent of the population of the proposed area for the Jewish state in the partition plan were Muslim and Christian Arabs. To prove itself to be a viable Jewish state, Ben Gurion used force to establish control over this area as well as significant other areas which were overwhelmingly Arab.

This led to what we would now call ethnic cleansing on a wide scale, with Palestinians forced to abandon their houses and land. Much of this was carried out in the final months of the British mandate, in Jaffa, the villages in the Jerusalem corridor, West Jerusalem and elsewhere. This process continued after the proclamation of the state of Israel, and in spite of the last minute and ineffectual intervention by the armies of neighbouring Arab states in support of the Palestinian Arabs. This happened, for instance, in Ramle, Lydda, and the countryside around Majdal/Ashkelon. Around 700,000 Palestinian Arabs, or 85% of the total population of the territory Israel captured, were expelled or fled from their homes – and have never been allowed to return since. The majority of their properties were confiscated by the Israeli state.

The war left a terrible legacy of mistrust on both sides. The Arabs, feeling abandoned by the British and robbed of their homeland by the Jews, maintained that the establishment of the state of Israel was both unjust and wrong in principle. Israel was not a member of the United Nations and the Arab states were under no obligation to recognise it. The view of the Egyptian government at the time that Israel was not a sovereign state on which it could declare war – and that the Zionist militias were therefore no more than armed gangs terrorising the local population – were reasonable. Nor did the British government recognise the state of Israel at the time, while the over-hasty US recognition of Israel has been described as “premature” by Crawford.[3]

Nevertheless, as Arab anger led to bellicose promises to crush the emerging state and restore the rights of the Palestinian Arabs, the myth of the Israeli David against the Arab Goliath was born. Most historians today do not accept that this myth corresponded to the military reality on the ground, but the Jewish population of Palestine at the time were understandably terrified they would be massacred. As Avi Shlaim has written, “it is precisely because this version [of history] corresponds so closely to the personal experience and perceptions of the Israelis who lived through the 1948 war that it has proved so resistant to revision and change.”[4]

While the new state of Israel was developed by its Jewish citizens, supported by allies around the world, the majority of Palestinians were now confined to a much-reduced part of their homeland, on the West Bank of the River Jordan and the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians lived with the hope that Britain, their Arab neighbours and the rest of the world community would recognise their expulsion and loss of rights. They hoped for a return to their cities, towns and villages, and for a state of their own.

A look at the map of Palestine as it has changed, from 1947 to the present day, shows how the process of land grab and ethnic cleansing has continued relentlessly. (See below)

Map: Loss of Palestinian Land 1947-Present

Image copyright: BADIL Resource Center for Palestinian Residency and Refugee Rights

The 1967 Arab-Israeli War, Occupation of the Palestinian Territories, and the 1993/95 Oslo Accords

In 1967 Israel attacked Egypt, amid heightened tension with Egypt, Jordan and Syria. During the ensuing Six-Day Arab-Israeli War Israel occupied eastern Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, dispossessing a further half a million Palestinians. While Egypt and Jordan eventually regained their territory lost in the war, Israel ignored numerous United Nations resolutions and continued to hold parts of the Palestinian territory it had taken (as well as Syria’s Golan Heights).

With their hopes dashed yet again, many desperate Palestinians lost all faith that their Arab neighbours, through warfare or diplomacy, could help them regain their land and many began to wonder if direct action might be the only way out. Terror tactics seemed to have succeeded in what the Israelis termed their War of Independence against the British (a term which deletes Palestinians from the Mandate’s history). Support grew for other forms of resistance, including civil uprisings too. Major Palestinian uprisings in 1987 and 2000, known as the First and Second Intifadas, exploded. As was the pattern with all attempts by Palestinians to fight back, regardless of the specific tactics used, the insurgencies were put down heavily by the Israeli military, with vastly more Palestinian lives lost than Israelis.

Since the 1967 war, Israel has been the occupying power in the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and the Gaza Strip. In defiance of international law, Israel has persisted in seizing ever more Palestinian land in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, moving its own citizens into these Occupied Territories and then giving them special privileges with regard to access, water and other public services – all, it claims, on the grounds of dealing with ‘security concerns’. Israel also interferes in criminal justice in the West Bank, and generally subjects the Palestinian population to routine harassment and restricted movement.

The Oslo Accords, signed in 1993 and 1995, ultimately turned out to be another huge blow to Palestinian aspirations, despite some measure of initial hope and good faith on both sides. Named after the negotiations held in secret in Oslo, Norway, the Accords were a pair of interim agreements between Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). They resulted in the recognition of Israel by the PLO, and of the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people by the state of Israel. Negotiations continued sporadically over the years, but no mutually acceptable agreement was ever reached on a ‘final status’ resolution of the conflict.

One outcome of the Accords was the setting up of the Palestinian Authority (PA), representing the PLO and dominated by Fatah, the principal Palestinian nationalist and social democratic party. The PA was given partial civil control within the Occupied Territories. But Israel was still the occupying power, and the subjugation of Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem continued. In time, the Oslo Accords evolved into a framework for the ossification and ever-increasing worsening of the status-quo.

In 2002, the Israeli government began construction of a massive Separation Wall. Ostensibly a security measure to keep Palestinians (including suicide bombers) from Israeli territory, this wall in fact extended beyond the ‘Green Line’, widely-recognised as the de facto Israel-Palestine border. It has resulted in the demolition of more homes, the restriction of Palestinians’ movement, even to access their own properties or jobs, and the confiscation of even more Palestinian land. The Wall was declared illegal in 2004 by the International Court of Justice.

At the same time, under Israeli governments of all political stripes, the expansion of illegal Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank has never halted. Quite the opposite. Violence against Palestinian civilians and prisoners became more and more common. In August 2024 the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories (B’Tselem), published an extensively-research report, “Welcome to Hell”, into the Israeli prison system, in which it exposed that Palestinian inmates, most of whom were detained without charge, are “deliberately subjected to harsh, relentless pain and suffering [in prisons which] operate as de-facto torture camps”. The rhetoric of ministers in successive Israeli governments became ever more explicitly racist and hardline in ruling out any prospect of the Palestinians having a legal right or path to statehood.

Meanwhile in Gaza, Israel withdrew its military and illegal settlers in 2005, while continuing to enforce a siege of the territory. In 2006 the Islamic Resistance Movement, Hamas, won the democratic Palestinian Authority legislative elections having contested them under the list name of Change and Reform. Despite strong indications of a willingness to moderate its views and negotiate, Hamas was not acceptable to the international community and the new government went unrecognised, including by the Fatah leadership in the West Bank. Some would say the lack of recognition and any effort to improve the lives of residents of the territory drove them back to a more militant stance. In 2007 Hamas seized control of the Gaza strip, and the Israeli blockade intensified. This prevented the economic development of the strip but did not succeed in stopping weapons reaching Hamas and other militant groups.

Throughout this Israel remained, legally, an occupying force for the purposes of the Fourth Geneva Convention, with all of the obligations this entailed towards the people of Gaza under international humanitarian law. But in practice the blockade of Gaza prevented its people from travelling, even to visit family in the West Bank, and deprived them of essential food and medical supplies. From time to time over the next 16 years Hamas would fire rockets into Israel, and Israel would respond with heavy bombing operations over the densely-populated Gaza Strip, now often referred to as “the world’s largest prison”. Life for Gazans was getting worse and worse, with no prospect of change in sight.

October 7th 2023 and the Aftermath: War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity

7th October 2023

On 7th October 2023 the Hamas Government of the Gaza Strip led an attack across the border into multiple locations within the state of Israel. While the principle of the use of force for defence and national liberation is legally well established, the attacks were not restricted to legitimate, military targets. On the contrary, in the hours and days that followed, 1200 people were killed, the majority of whom were civilians, murdered as they went about their business. In addition, 223 Israeli civilians were abducted and taken hostage into Gaza, along with 27 captured soldiers. The Israeli Defence Forces were slow to defend their citizens, and the massacre is now acknowledged to have been a terrible Intelligence failure on their part. Their inattention also reflects an Israeli Government belief that the Palestinians in Gaza were sufficiently ‘contained’ for their forces to be redeployed in bolstering the military occupation of the West Bank. Some analysts had long held that Netanyahu had encouraged the growth of Hamas’ power in Gaza, seeing this as a means to fuel division between Gaza and the West Bank and as a way of bolstering electoral support for a hardline coalition government in Israel that would ‘justify’ retaliatory attacks and even re-occupation of the territory.

Israel’s Revenge

The Israeli Government has since launched a prolonged and systematic bombing of Gaza, from October 2023 to the present precarious ceasefire finally reached on 19th January 2025. The Government claimed throughout that this was a matter of self-defence, and that they were targeting Hamas. But it there is copious evidence that much of the bombing was indiscriminate, while hospitals and schools were clearly deliberately targeted, and essential electricity, water and fuel supplies were cut off.

The UN put the number of Palestinians killed at almost 45,000 by December 2024, well over 13,000 of them children. 90% of Gaza’s population (almost 1.9 million) was repeatedly displaced into ever-shrinking locations. The BBC estimates that by October 2024 more than half of the homes in Gaza had been destroyed, and the UN reports more than 80% of Gazans have been made homeless. The Committee to Protect Journalists records 160 journalists as having been killed by January 2025 (almost all of them Palestinian). At least 27 hospitals have been destroyed.

Legal & Civil Society Responses

Following South Africa’s allegation that Israel was committing genocide against the Palestinians and it’s referral of Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ), in January 2024 the court accepted the plausibility of “at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa” under the Genocide Convention and ordered Israel to take measures to prevent acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip “with immediate effect”.

In July 2024 the ICJ ruled that Israel’s occupation of the Gaza strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, is unlawful, along with the associated settlement regime, annexation and use of natural resources. The ruling obliged all UN member states to desist from actions which enabled these breaches of international law and to take action to prevent them.

In November 2024 the International Criminal Court issued criminal arrest warrants for Prime Minister Netanyahu, his former Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, and a Hamas commander Mohammed Deif (killed by Israel in July). They were charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. The response of the international community to this was divided. President Biden dismissed it as “outrageous”. Several European countries said they would respect the ruling. The British government quietly confirmed the UK’s acceptance of the ruling, but was reluctant to be drawn on whether or not Netanyahu would be arrested if he came to Britain.

Reviewing in detail the first nine months of the Israeli assault, a report published by Amnesty International (5thJanuary 2025) demonstrated that “Israel has carried out acts prohibited under the Genocide Convention, with the specific intent to destroy Palestinians in Gaza”. The report also concluded that Israel “has caused unprecedented destruction, which experts say occurred at a level and speed not seen in any other conflict in the 21st century, levelling entire cities and destroying critical infrastructure, agricultural land and cultural and religious sites. It thereby rendered large swathes of Gaza uninhabitable”.

Israel’s continuing media restrictions have meant that continuing, if not increasing, Israeli attacks on Palestinians in the West Bank and East Jerusalem since October 2023 were less visible to the world. At the same time Israeli government ministers have spoken openly about establishing new Jewish settlements in Gaza. Such talk was taken to a new level when President Trump came to power in the USA in January 2025. Trump’s friendship with Netanyahu and sympathies with the Israeli right-wing made his claims to personally settle the Israel-Palestine crisis in Israel’s favour no surprise. Rumours abounded that Trump was eyeing up the Gazan coastline as a prime piece of profitable real estate for Israel and possibly, in part, for himself.

The Impact of the Unresolved Palestine/Israel Conflict on the World

Impact on the Middle East region and beyond

The almost century-long question mark hanging over Palestine, and the recent escalations of violence in Israel and the Palestinian Territories continues to have enormous repercussions for the Middle East and wider world.

The conflict directly and detrimentally impacts all of Israel and Palestine’s neighbours, most  obviously Syria in the post-Assad era, and Lebanon and Jordan with their sizeable Palestinian populations. Palestinians have consistently been used as a tool in wider power plays between Israel, Iran and the USA, details of which are beyond the scope of this paper, as well as to recruit support for the so-called Islamic State (IS) and other extremist groups. The potential for this ‘open wound’ to fuel yet further extremism, factionalism and war is self-evident.

But the response of the international community to the recent Israeli offensive on Gaza has been surprisingly muted. Many smaller countries like Norway and the Irish Republic have openly supported the Palestinians. Israel’s strongest ally, the United States, has stood by Israel, even blocking moves by the United Nations to censure the bombing of civilians and provide humanitarian aid in Gaza. Most European countries, including Britain, have over the years become fearful of criticising, or certainly going beyond rebuking Israel. Either they buy into the contentious and mistaken view that criticising even brutal policies of the state of Israel is ‘antisemitic’ or they are fearful that speaking up or taking action might be portrayed as such. Since such fears are rarely if ever voiced openly, the general stance of these countries has been to repeat Israel’s undoubted “right to defend itself”, overlooking aggressive and illegal actions taken by the state of Israel under the cover of ‘self-defence’, and whatever the consequences in terms of Palestinian loss of life.

The world has witnessed not just a dumbing down of recognition and understanding of humanitarian atrocities, but a growing lack of respect for international law, with many countries choosing to simply ignore the recent rulings on Israel’s actions by the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. Countries like America and Britain that once prided themselves in supporting the rule of law and human rights have had their credibility hugely undermined by such hypocrisy. Countries, including Putin’s Russia, that practice a ‘might makes right’ foreign policy are only boosted by such (in)action and inconsistency, especially in their dealings with other, especially non-aligned, countries.

What is universally agreed, however, is that the ongoing Israeli-Palestine conflict has far-reaching implications for global stability, and a comprehensive peace settlement is long overdue.

Palestinian Refugees

Seventy-six years after the establishment of Israel, there are still hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees and their descendants living in refugee camps in the West Bank and Gaza, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan – who do not all enjoy full citizenship rights in their countries of residence and have not always been treated well by their hosts. Indeed, some have been treated appallingly. The camps are managed at great international expense by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine (UNRWA). They tend of course to house the poorer refugees. Many others have succeeded in joining the Palestinian diaspora around the world and made new homes for themselves. Those refugees from the camps and others who wish to return to Palestine should either be allowed to do so, or should finally be compensated. This currently seems a forlorn hope, but they are currently forgotten people.

Israel’s Flouting of International Law and Systematic Denial of Palestinian Rights

There is a debate about whether Israel meets the formal requirements to be labelled an ‘apartheid state’ as per international law. While the use of the term is controversial, there can be no doubt that Israel systematically and legally discriminates against Palestinians both inside Israel proper and especially with regards the different legal rights given to Jewish and non-Jewish residents of the West Bank, including in East Jerusalem.

Some supporters of Israel feel that it is held to much higher standards than the Palestinian Authority and Hamas government in Gaza are, let alone than most other Arab governments are. And as Liberal Democrats we are concerned just as much about human rights violations by Hamas as we are when we hear of arbitrary arrests or discrimination in the Occupied Territories.

Israel, however, claims to be a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, enjoys special privileges with the European Union and receives enormous financial aid from the US. There is considerable evidence of double standards in its treatment of its Jewish and its non-Jewish populations whether within Israel, or in the West Bank, and of course in the besieged and bombed-out Gaza. It needs to work much harder to justify its privileges and its democratic reputation. As Ari Shavit, a journalist for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, has written, “If the Israeli Arabs will be woven into our social and political fabric and given the equality they deserve, they might prefer what democratic Israel has to offer over what is offered by Islamist Arab nations and radical Palestinian political movements.”[5]

It might also be observed that the historic cause of democracy in Palestine has been severely impeded, firstly, by the incorporation of the Balfour Declaration into the document establishing the Palestine mandate; secondly, by the refusal of the mandate authorities to allow the territory to have its own elected assembly; and thirdly, by the forcible imposition of the state of Israel on Palestinians by the Jewish minority.

Israel’s Continuing Unresolved Security Concerns

The best prospects for Israelis to live in security will come when it steadily removes the policies that incite legitimate anger among Palestinians, recognises the Nakba (‘Catastrophe’) that the inflicted on Palestinians in 1948, and reaches a just and sustainable peace with the Palestinians and their neighbours.

While many liberal-minded Israelis and Jewish supporters of the state of Israel elsewhere in the world agree with this statement, the current regime in Israel would find it hard to accept. Successive general elections have produced increasingly hardline right-wing governments, with members outspoken in asserting their desire to expand their borders and deny Palestinians the right to a separate land or culture. For generations now Israeli schools have taught children that Palestine never existed, that Palestinians have no culture of their own. Israel, they claim, was fairly won in the ‘War of Independence’ against the British in 1948,  just like any other British colony that won its freedom to rule itself. They conveniently ignore what happened to the Palestinian majority of the time, and the ‘terrorist’ methods used by Irgun, Lehi and other groups to seize that independence by force rather than negotiation and agreement.

Official control over education, the media and free speech means the spread of misinformation is widespread. Discussion of the Nakba is censored, and liberals and refuseniks (those who resist conscription to the Israeli army) can be severely punished for undermining these national stories. The lack of contact between Israelis and Palestinians, reinforced by the Separation Wall and the isolation of illegal settlements with their own access roads, has blocked the scope for normal social contact between the two people.

Such control has made it easy for successive right-wing Israeli governments to claim that every act of aggression on Israel’s part, whether in the West Bank or Gaza, Lebanon or Syria, is purely motivated by a desire for security. Even expansion of Israel’s de facto borders can be claimed to be a security requirement! And if anyone outside the country criticises any action against the Palestinians, then that too is protested to be “in self-defence”. The concern for security is highly understandable and perfectly legitimate. Nobody wants to have missiles raining down on their homes. But this should work both ways: both sides have an equal right to self defence. Both Israelis and Palestinians should have an equal obligation under international law to refrain from targeting civilians or carrying out collective punishment.

That Hamas’ and allied factions’ actions on 7th October 2023 were war crimes is not in doubt and justice must be served. It is equally true that Israeli politicians and military officers responsible for the attacks upon civilians in Gaza and the West Bank should also be brought to justice. As Liberal Democrats we uphold the principle of peace and mutual respect with neighbours being the most effective form of national security.

It is tragic that the Arab Peace Initiative, also known as the Saudi Initiative, endorsed by the Arab League in 2002 and re-endorsed in 2007 and 2017, has received such little support in the West, even as the basis for negotiations. The initiative advocates the normalisation of relations by the whole Arab world with Israel. In return, Israel would withdraw from the occupied territories (including the West Bank, Gaza and the Golan Heights). There would be the possibility of comparable and mutually agreed minor swaps of the land between Israel and Palestine, a “just settlement” of the Palestinian refugee problem based on UN Resolution 194 and the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. All of this is fully in line with international law.

Consequences for World Jewry

The creation of the state of Israel, and the way in which Israel forced many native Palestinians off their land or from their towns and villages and turned many of them into refugees in other countries, enraged many in the rest of the Arab and Muslim worlds. The Jewish communities that had generally cohabited comfortably with other cultures for thousands of years in, for instance, Iraq, Syria and Egypt were harassed, sometimes violently. Over time – for instance, in the late 1940s/early 1950s in Iraq and Libya; after the Suez Crisis in Egypt; and after independence in 1962 in Algeria) – the overwhelming majority were forced to leave. Many settled in Israel, which opened its doors to them.

In the early decades there was great support for Israel in Western countries, in substantial part in reaction to the horrors of the Holocaust. However, opinion polls show that Israel’s colonisation of Palestinian territories, repeated attacks on Lebanon, general defiance of international law and scant regard for the human rights of non-Jews has turned the tide of sympathy towards the Palestinians. In some cases this has had consequences that have included the spread of antisemitism in Arab countries and elsewhere. As Liberal Democrats we condemn antisemitism as strongly as we condemn any kind of race and hate crime against Jews, Israelis, Muslims and Palestinians, working to bring people together rather than divide them in the face of community tensions. This requires the consistent application of clear principles, including support for equality before the law, domestically and internationally.

British Foreign Policy

British Foreign Policy has, since the Suez debacle of 1956 when Britain (and Israel) found themselves on the opposite side to the Americans, largely been shadowed by US policies towards the region. A determination to retain the position of America’s closest ally has been one of the main aims of every British government, except possibly that of Edward Heath who tried to lead the country closer towards Europe. This has led Britain into participating in dubious wars in the Middle East, support for Arab regimes with atrocious human rights records, and the taming of legitimate criticism of Israeli belligerence and human rights abuses.

While it is true that Britain has been quicker to criticise Israel than the US, it has always refrained from dissociating itself from American policies and did not vote for Palestinian membership of the General Assembly of the UN when most of the rest of the world did. The Conservative-Lib Dem coalition government of 2010-2015 did however take tentative steps to put pressure on Israel by working with European partners to prevent produce from illegal Israeli settlements from enjoying special tariff benefits that Israeli and Palestinian producers enjoy. When Labour took power in 2024 many of its backbench MPs hoped for a more ethical foreign policy in relation to Israel and Palestine. But this hasn’t materialised, and it remains for the Lib Dems and other smaller parties to speak up for the recognition of Palestine and pursuit of a two-state solution.

It has yet to be seen what impact the foreign policy approach of President Trump will have on the present UK government, and whether it might encourage a more proactive approach to Israel and Palestine along with European neighbours.

The Liberal Democrats: Opportunities & Responsibilities

The Liberal Democrats’ Opportunity and Duty to Help Resolve the Israel-Palestine Conflict

The Preamble to the Liberal Democrat Constitution includes the following pointers that inform our approach to Palestine:

“The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.

We look forward to a world in which all people share the same basic rights, in which they live together in peace and in which their different cultures will be able to develop freely.

We promote human rights and open government… international action based on a recognition of the interdependence of all the world’s peoples…

Our responsibility for justice and liberty cannot be confined by national boundaries; we are committed to fight poverty, oppression, hunger, ignorance, disease and aggression wherever they occur.”

We are also support, and are informed by, the Balfour Project, which seeks to honour Britain’s historic promises to the Palestinians, and endorse their primary concern that Palestine should be recognised as a national entity. The Balfour Project states in its mission that, “While the British Government recognised the State of Israel in 1950, Palestinians remain stateless, exiled, refugees or second-class citizens within Israel… Britain has a duty to recognise the State of Palestine as a step towards equality and an end to the occupation, and fulfil its historic commitments.”

Liberal Democrat Policy-Making

Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine call on our party and the UK government to:

  • Recognise the State of Palestine, as most UN members have done
  • Work for a lasting ceasefire, recognising there is no military solution to remove Hamas from Gaza
  • Lead a diplomatic push towards establishing a State of Palestine based on 1967 borders
  • Support Palestinians and Israelis in building a peaceful future based on equal rights, justice and security for all
  • Uphold and respect the findings of international courts and international law (ICC and ICJ)
  • Suspend all arms exports to Israel
  • Legislate to cease trade with the illegal settlements in the Palestinian Territories.

This is not new policy. At the Liberal Democrat Party Conference in September 2024, the motion (set out below) was moved by Layla Moran MP, and passed by an overwhelming majority of party members. This built on previous Lib Dem policy on Palestine, and the LDFP are dedicated to supporting this approach.

The Israel-Gaza Conflict – an immediate bilateral ceasefire and securing two states – Emergency policy motion

Conference notes:

  1. The ongoing humanitarian devastation in Gaza, where now over 40,000 Palestinians are now estimated to have been killed and vast numbers have life changing injuries.
  2. That almost one year on from the deplorable 7 October terrorist attacks which killed over 1,100, many survivors are traumatised including by the use of sexual violence and there remains an ongoing hostage situation, with over 100 Israelis still held by Hamas.
  3. The clear risk of escalation across the region, with increased tensions in August 2024 raising concerns about a regional war, and increased violence in the West Bank in the context of ongoing trauma to the Palestinian people.
  4. The role of Iran, which continues to destabilise the region including via its Revolutionary Guards, its supply of arms to its proxy terrorist groups Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis, and the military responses which it threatens against Israel.
  5. Ongoing cases at the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice, and the UK’s Government’s July 2024 decision to stop potential arrest warrants which the ICC might issue, including against Israeli PM Netanyahu and Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar.
  6. The ICJ’s advisory opinion in July 2024 that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal.
  7. The millions who have been displaced by this ongoing conflict since October 7, with almost 2 million displaced in Gaza, around 135,000 Israelis displaced from Northern and Southern Israel, and over 1,000 Palestinians fleeing their homes in the West Bank in the face of spiking settler violence.
  8. The conflict’s impact in the UK, and applauds the work done by NGOs, faith groups, local authorities and others to combat unacceptable race and hate crime including against Jews, Israelis, Muslims and Palestinians, and to bring people together rather than divide them in the face of community tensions.

Conference believes that:

  1. Only a political and diplomatic solution, not a military one, will resolve this conflict, get Hamas out of power and deliver a lasting peace.
  2. A two-state solution is the only way to deliver the dignity and security which Palestinians and Israelis deserve.
  3. An immediate bilateral ceasefire is desperately needed, to resolve the humanitarian devastation in Gaza, get the hostages home and provide space to secure a two-state solution.

Conference accordingly reaffirms:

  1. The Autumn 2021 Federal Conference motion F39, Towards a Lasting Peace.
  2. The Liberal Democrats’ commitment to a two-state solution in which Israel and Palestine both exist with secure boundaries based on 1967 lines.

Conference calls on the UK Government to:

  1. Work to bring about an immediate bilateral ceasefire in the Israel-Gaza conflict, including:
  2. Demanding the unconditional release of the remaining hostages.
  3. Pressing for more access for humanitarian aid and essential supplies into Gaza.
  4. Providing all necessary assistance, including aid, to UNRWA to alleviate the humanitarian crisis and ensure that the recommendations of the independent Colonna report are implemented as quickly as possible, thereby assuring that all work to support Palestinians in Gaza is of the highest possible standards and integrity.
  5. Uphold the role of international law and international courts, including respecting in full the ICJ advisory opinion that the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories is illegal and upholding its findings, and accordingly:
  6. Introduce legislation to cease trade with illegal Israeli settlements in occupied territories.
  7. Work to reduce heightened tensions in the West Bank, and accordingly including connected entities in the scope of sanctions against anyone in the settler movement that uses or incites violence, building on the work of the US and EU.
  8. Work to end the use of arbitrary administrative detention of Palestinians by the IDF.
  9. Enacting a presumption of denial for arms exports to governments listed by the Foreign Office as human rights priorities, and therefore immediately suspending arms exports to Israel, in accordance with similar decisions taken by previous UK governments of all political parties.
  10. Recognising the existential threat of Iran not just in the Middle East but to Western democracies, by:
  11. Proscribing Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.
  12. Conducting an audit of UK-based assets owned by Iranian officials, in order to freeze those assets.
  13. Press for a two-state solution, including by:
  14. Immediately recognising the state of Palestine.
  15. Working with the peace-builders in Israel and Palestine who call for two-states, to wrestle control away from the extremes.
  16. Working with the international community to identify future democratic leaders of Palestine, with a view to having swift elections in Palestine as soon as possible in the hope of uniting Gaza and the West Bank under one democratically elected voice.
  17. Investing in peace, such as via the International Fund for Middle East Peace, and using trade as a tool for peace, ensuring that Palestinians and Israelis benefit.

Conference further calls on Liberal Democrats to engage with all their ALDE and Liberal International sister parties to secure a two-state solution based on 1967 lines in the region, including Israel’s Yesh Atid party.

Please note that LDFP do have some misgivings over the final line of this policy statement. While in principal we strongly support all engagement and collaboration with fellow liberal sister parties internationally, LDFP has found Yesh Atid supportive of highly illiberal actions by the Israeli government, and prefer to seek engagement with more centrist, genuinely liberal human rights groups in Israel as well as liberal Jewish groups in the UK such as Yachad, B’Tselem, and Na’amod.

Supporting International Law, Human Rights & the Two-State Solution

When the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants on Netanyahu and his former minister Gallant in November 2024, Lib Dem leader Ed Davey spoke up strongly in support. “These alleged crimes are among the worst imaginable”, he said in his statement. “The UK must stand up for international law and give the ICC our full support to deliver justice. We must also suspend arms exports to Israel and press for an immediate bilateral ceasefire and the release of the hostages.” Prime Minister Starmer was less fulsome in his support, stating only that the government “respected the independence” of the ICC. Starmer has also failed to stop all UK arms exports to Israel, so Lib Dems are the only major party to proactively pursue a clear policy on Palestine.

Since the Gaza ceasefire in January 2025, and the inauguration of President Trump around the same time, it has been impossible to second-guess developments. However, we remain committed to helping create conditions for a lasting peace in Israel and Palestine, and the pursuit of Lib Dem policies regarding the upholding of international law, universal human rights and a two-state solution. We consider the recognition of Palestine to be an important step towards fruitful negotiations.

We will continue supporting the people of Gaza in their struggle for food, shelter and the reconstruction of their territory, and support all reasonable steps towards a peace agreement that would provide both Israel and Palestine with lasting security.

Meeting Voter Expectations

We believe that the Liberal Democrats benefitted considerably from support in Muslim communities at the 2010 General Election. This can be attributed both to the Lib Dems being the only major party to oppose the invasion of Iraq in 1993, and also to Nick Clegg being the only party leader at the time to consistently criticise Israel for its policies towards the Palestinians.

The UK General Election in July 2024, like the Presidential Election in America the same year, showed that disgust at Israel’s destruction of Gaza was impacting a significant number of voters. In the US 19 million Biden voters decided not to vote for Kamala Harris as President. A YouGov survey after that election found that the top reason cited by these non-voters for failing to use their vote, above the economy (24%) and immigration (11%), was Gaza, (29%).

In Britain, despite a landslide victory by Labour, figures show (Focaldata Minorities Report 8th October 2024) that the traditionally strong Muslim vote for Labour fell by nearly one third at the 2024 election – purely over its stance on Gaza. Moreover, four pro-Palestine independent candidates had shock wins in the election, including gaining the seat of shadow secretary of state for work and pensions, Jonathan Ashworth.

The Focaldata report stated, “Labour’s problems with Muslim voters over Gaza came into sharp focus when leader Keir Starmer failed to back an unconditional ceasefire. He also gave a radio interview in which he appeared to suggest it was acceptable for Israel to withhold power and water from the territory.  Amid weekly large pro-Palestinian marches in London, the party also faced criticism for not supporting a ceasefire in Gaza but mirrored the former Tory government’s stance of backing a pause in fighting to allow humanitarian aid to flow.”

The Lib Dem Friends of Palestine believe these figures should provide a wake-up call to the Lib Dem party, since these Muslim voters, lost to Labour, voted largely for pro-Palestine independents or Green Pary candidates. The Greens, who campaigned explicitly on Gaza, and called Israel’s attack “genocide”, went on to win four seats, and a larger share of the ‘ethnic minorities’ vote than the Lib Dems (9% to Lib Dems 8%).

The main reference to the Lib Dems in this Focaldata report is made when it cites independent MP Ayoub Khan, who beat Labour in Birmingham Perry Barr. Khan had resigned from the Lib Dem party since it “prevented him from speaking out over Gaza”!  It’s ironic that despite the Lib Dems’ clear policy both on Gaza and diversity, the Lib Dems missed such a good opportunity to reach minority voters by speaking out boldly on Gaza. Foreign policy was clearly not seen as an election issue, despite frequent questions put to candidates about Gaza at hustings around the country.

In addition to reaching out to the Muslim community LDFP is eager (as mentioned above) to engage with the many Jews and Jewish pressure groups arguing for justice for Palestinians. These form a substantial ‘Jewish Bloc’ on the regular national peace marches in London, which Lib Dem Friends of Palestine also joins in with regularly. We particularly commend Yachad (www.yachad.org.uk) for working within the Jewish community in the UK showing both its love for and commitment to Israel while encouraging Jews to recognise that much of what the Israeli government does is impeding a peaceful two-state solution to the conflict. Yachad’s values appear to us to be well in tune with Liberal Democratic values.

We appeal to our party leadership to engage with those British Jews whose love for Israel still enables then to criticise the country where necessary, and advance policies and values close to those of the Lib Dems – rather than those in the Jewish community who blindly defend Israel ‘right or wrong’.

The Role of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine

With party values, policy and voter concerns at the heart of our work, the Liberal Democrat Friends of Palestine lobby within and beyond the party to ensure that the situation for Palestinians is fairly understood. We do this undaunted by the highly organised pro-Israel lobby and media coverage that can give the impression that Palestinians (if mentioned at all) are second-class citizens without agency in Israeli society – undereducated at best, terrorist threats at worst. We on the other hand fully appreciate the Palestinians as a fine, highly-educated, resilient people with a noble history and culture, who have, despite their misfortunes, contributed hugely to global culture through their writers, musicians, artists, cooks and academics.

The activities of the LDFP include providing information to Lib Dem MPs, and keeping up pressure on MPs of all parties, in both Houses, to work towards peace, negotiations and a two-state solution. We are always ready to help discuss policy ideas, shape statements and liaise with Palestinian experts.

As part of our work we offer webinars and speaker events, run stands and fringe events at conferences, write articles and speak out on social media (Facebook, Instagram, X and BlueSky, WhatsApp groups). A growing group of LDFP members and supporters regularly attend national peace marches for Palestine. We also run events and fundraisers and local party level too.

Our representative team includes Jews and Muslims, and is drawn from local parties all over the country. Our numbers have grown substantially in the past year. We also welcome Associate Members to join us, people who are not party members but who nonetheless support liberalism, internationalism, the indivisibility of human rights and the rule of law. We warmly welcome new members, whether to play an active role or to simply show your support at this crucial time for Palestinians. We do this work to stand by the Palestinian people, for whom we believe a peaceful outcome from the recent disasters is within reach. World opinion has been shifting, and with strong political vision and leadership from Britain and other supportive countries a solution is achievable.

[1] Covenant of the League of Nations, Article 22.

[2] Benny Morris, 1948: A History of the First Arab Israeli War (2008), p.1.

[3] The Creation of States in International Law”, 2nd edition, Oxford, 2006, p. 433.

[4] Avi Shlaim, The Iron Wall, (2000), p.222.

[5] Ari Shavit: My Promised Land – The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel. 2013. P. 415.