Justice cannot be reduced to keeping everyone reasonably satisfied
By Mohamed Atherulla Shariff
The latest British move against Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank marks one of the sharpest changes in London’s approach to Israel in recent years. Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband has condemned the destruction and suffering in Gaza, accused Israeli settler extremists of ethnic cleansing in parts of the West Bank, announced sanctions against settlement-related activities and declared that Britain can no longer merely express concern while the two-state solution is being steadily eroded. Still he fell short calling the Israeli oppression genocide.
Yet there is an interesting paradox at the heart of Miliband’s position. He is prepared to speak in remarkably strong terms about Israel’s conduct, while simultaneously reaffirming his ‘unwavering’ support for the State of Israel and stressing his Jewish identity. It is a political balancing act that might aptly be described as ‘pleasing God without displeasing the Devil’.
The phrase captures the tension in a Western foreign policy that seeks, at the same time, to respond to the suffering of Palestinians, defend international law, preserve Britain’s historic relationship with Israel and avoid being accused of hostility towards the Jewish state. Miliband’s latest intervention is nevertheless significant because the balance appears to be shifting.
An Unusually Blunt British Voice
Addressing Parliament, Miliband described the situation in Gaza in exceptionally strong language. He spoke of unimaginable suffering, mass death and destruction and what he called a process of ‘dehumanisation’. He characterised the devastation as a stain on the conscience of the world and on Britain’s conscience too. Such language is far removed from the carefully calibrated diplomatic vocabulary traditionally used by Western governments when discussing Israel.
More striking was his description of developments in the West Bank. The British government now accepts that Palestinians are being subjected to ethnic cleansing in parts of the occupied territory by extremist settlers. Miliband also announced measures against individuals involved in settler violence and against economic activities that help sustain the settlements.
Britain is to prohibit imports originating from Israeli settlements, restrict services connected with settlement expansion and prevent certain exports from materially contributing to the occupation. The measures were announced alongside France and Canada and form part of a wider European and Western effort to put pressure on Israel over settlement expansion.
This is not insignificant. For years, Western governments have repeated their support for a two-state solution while watching Israeli settlements expand across the West Bank. Miliband appears to be saying that diplomatic declarations have little meaning unless accompanied by consequences.
The Real ‘North Star’
Miliband repeatedly returns to the two-state solution. For him, it remains Britain’s ‘north star’. He argues that Israelis and Palestinians must ultimately enjoy security, freedom and self-determination alongside each other. His criticism of Israel is therefore presented not as a rejection of Israel but as an attempt to preserve the possibility of a Palestinian state and, consequently, a negotiated peace. This is where his argument becomes politically clever. Miliband is not saying that Israel has no right to exist. He is saying that the present policies of its government are making the long-term security of Israel itself more difficult.
He has also drawn a deliberate distinction between Israel as a country and the policies of its present government. As he put it, Britain’s dispute is with the Israeli government, not with the Israeli people. At the same time, he emphatically warned that holding British Jews collectively responsible for Israeli government policy would itself be anti-Semitic. This distinction is important in Britain, where any criticism of Israel can quickly become entangled in arguments about anti-Semitism.
The Jewish Identity of the Critic
Miliband’s own background makes his intervention particularly interesting. He has spoken openly of being a proud British Jew and of his family’s history during the ‘Holocaust’. His grandmother found refuge in Israel after members of his family were murdered by the Nazis. He therefore presents his criticism of Israeli government policy not as hostility towards Jews or towards Israel but as entirely compatible with his Jewish identity. His formulation is politically deliberate: support for Israel and support for Palestinian statehood are not contradictory. That argument challenges a powerful assumption in Western political discourse namely, that criticism of Israel necessarily represents hostility towards Israel itself.
Miliband’s position is essentially that Israel’s security cannot be permanently achieved through occupation, settlement expansion and the denial of Palestinian political rights. Whether one agrees with every aspect of his analysis or not, this is a significant argument for a senior British statesman to make.
But how far does Britain really intend to go? Here lies the other side of the story. The measures announced by Britain are politically important but economically limited. Israeli settlement products constitute only a small proportion of Israel’s overall exports. The immediate economic impact of the import restrictions is therefore likely to be modest. Reuters described the measures as largely symbolic, although symbolically they could still have considerable diplomatic significance.
Moreover, Britain continues to maintain relations with Israel and insists that its actions are targeted at settlement policy rather than the Israeli population. This is why the title ‘apparent anti-Israel stand’ requires qualification. Miliband is not anti-Israel in the sense of opposing the existence of the Israeli state. Indeed, he explicitly rejects such an interpretation. His position is closer to an argument that Israel’s present policies are incompatible with its own long-term security and with the international order Britain claims to defend.
Britain wants to demonstrate that it has a conscience on Palestine without abandoning Israel. It wants to condemn injustice without severing the strategic relationship. It wants to support Palestinian rights without alienating Britain’s Jewish community. And it wants to distinguish itself from Washington’s more protective posture towards the Israeli government without completely breaking with its principal Western ally. The domestic political debate is likely to continue.
A Welcome Departure from Silence
For supporters of Palestinian rights, Miliband’s intervention is welcome but it should be judged by what follows his words. Palestinians have heard Western governments express concern for decades. They have watched settlements grow, Palestinian land shrink and successive peace initiatives fail. They have heard repeated references to the two-state solution while facts on the ground have moved in the opposite direction. Miliband himself recognises this contradiction. His argument is essentially that Britain cannot continue to say it supports two states while remaining passive as the territorial foundations of a Palestinian state disappear. That is perhaps the strongest aspect of his intervention.
His statement that Britain will no longer remain a bystander is politically significant. Prime Minister Andy Burnham has similarly argued that Britain must ‘stand for something’ and that support for the underdog requires action rather than words alone.
Yet the real test will be whether these words translate into sustained policy. Will Britain oppose further settlement expansion with the same determination? Will it insist upon genuine accountability for abuses? Will it apply international law consistently? Will it challenge forced displacement wherever it occurs? And, above all, will it support Palestinian self-determination even when doing so creates serious friction with Israel and Washington?
Beyond the Politics of Balancing
Miliband deserves credit for breaking, at least partially, with the tradition of diplomatic silence. His language is stronger, his acknowledgement of Palestinian suffering more explicit and his willingness to impose consequences more substantial than that of many previous British governments. But moral leadership cannot ultimately consist of balancing between two constituencies. Justice cannot be reduced to keeping everyone reasonably satisfied.
If Britain genuinely believes that occupation, forced displacement and settlement expansion violate international law, then its policy should follow that principle consistently irrespective of political pressure. The most important part of Miliband’s intervention is therefore not his criticism of Israel alone. It is his suggestion that Western governments possess the power to act and cannot indefinitely hide behind expressions of concern.
For decades, Palestinians have been told to wait for diplomacy while the realities of occupation become more entrenched. Miliband’s message is that Britain will no longer be entirely silent. That is a welcome change. But whether it represents a genuine moral realignment or merely a more sophisticated attempt at ‘pleasing God without displeasing the Devil’ will ultimately be decided not by speeches in Westminster, but by what Britain is prepared to do when its principles collide with political interests. For the Palestinians, the difference between the two is enormous.
