New Conservative-led British government’s MidEast policy likely to be more of the same, but dangers from the Liberal Democrats
So, with Conservative leader David Cameron having been appointed as Prime Minister on Tuesday evening and with the Liberal Democrats under Nick Clegg having agreed to join the Conservatives in a coalition government, here, in bullet point form, is a summary of my initial thoughts on what this all might mean for Britain’s policy on Israel and the Middle East. This is an instant reaction. I will flesh it out when the government programme is released later. Here goes:
** Foreign policy generally will take a distant second place to the economy. The European Commission last week forecast Britain’s budget deficit would grow to 12 percent of gross domestic product by the end of the year, exceeding even Greece’s to represent the largest deficit in the entire 27-member European Union. That will occupy the business of this government for as long as it lasts. Only foreign policy matters involving Britain’s armed forces engaged in combat (Afghanistan, mainly) will ever likely rise to the top of the political agenda in any meaningful way.
** With that in mind, consider that the word “Israel” did not appear once in the Conservative Party’s election manifesto. The Tories pledged only to “support a two-state solution to the Middle East Peace Process”. Not what you’d call a mindblowingly original contribution to the debate!
** Given that both parties in the coalition will be preoccupied with the economy and that the Conservative Party, the leading party in the coalition, has shown no real interest in the Middle East anyway, the British Foreign office will find itself in an immensely powerful position to influence the direction of policy. In other words, the (Arabist-oriented) bureacracy is likely to inherit a lot of power by default as top politicians attend to other matters.
** The new Foreign Secretary will be William Hague (Conservative). Hague is a good man, and he is highly intelligent. But it is not clear how much depth there is to his knowledge of Middle Eastern affairs. His best known attitudes to foreign policy are his views on the European Union, (which are sceptical). This would also suggest that he will rely heavily on the traditionally anti-Israeli Foreign Office for guidance on Israel.
** In terms of Hague’s gut opinions on Israel, he described the Jewish state’s actions in the 2006 Lebanon war as “disproportionate”. In March this year, however, he contrasted his views on Lebanon with his response to Operation Cast Lead in Gaza:
“During Cast Lead Israel was under rocket attack and I was careful to not condemn what was happening but to call for a ceasefire on both sides,” he said. “I was more critical of the Lebanon war, because I did not think it was wise from Israel’s point of view.” And, he added: “I do have my differences with Israel sometimes. We will be a candid friend. If we are critical, it will be after we have thought about it carefully.”
** The Liberal-Democrats, led by the new Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, are probably the most anti-Israeli party among Britain’s big three. Their attitude to foreign affairs generally often appears to draw its inspiration from the NGO community and the likes of the UN Human Rights Council.
Clegg has warned of “sabre rattling” over Iran’s nuclear programme and of Britain “sleepwalking” its way into a military conflict on the matter. His party is in favour of the universal jurisdiction laws. It also contains people such as the infamous peer Baroness Jenny Tonge who has gone on record as saying that if she had to live like the Palestinians she might even become a suicide bomber herself. Recently, she suggested that allegations that Israeli medical teams in Haiti were harvesting the bodily organs of Haitian earthquake victims were sufficiently credible as to merit investigation. Clegg reprimanded her for that, but did not kick her out of the party many of whose members support her views.
** The Liberal Democrat Party’s election manifesto pledged on the Middle East to: “Remain committed to the search for a peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A sustainable solution can be reached in the context of two separate Israeli and Palestinian states, mutually recognised and internationally accepted within borders which are secure and based on the situation before the 1967 conflict. We condemn disproportionate force used by all sides. We believe Britain and the EU must put pressure on Israel and Egypt to end the blockade of Gaza.”
** My initial conclusion, therefore, is that there will be no real change in the substance of British policy towards Israel, although the Liberal Democrats may negatively influence the tone. The Foreign Office will face no significant new dynamics from this government forcing it to change its long-standing approach to the MidEast. That approach is based on the belief that good relations with the Arab and Muslim world are essential to maintaining energy security, and to getting things done in international institutions such as the United Nations where they represent a large and influential bloc of nations. Israel will continue to be a casualty of that calculation.
Tags: Israel
May 12th, 2010 at 6:12 am
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100035649/nick-clegg%E2%80%99s-israel-bashing-is-sickening/
Interesting comments from a Telegraph blog .
I hope that Israel’s joining of the OECD might temper Clegg’s pronouncements but I fear that the new administration will take little interest in the region in the immediate future.
May 12th, 2010 at 6:44 am
Robin,a few weeks ago you wrote saying something very perceptive about Cameron regarding his views on Goldstone that could set the tone of future handling of Mid-East politics. You said:
“If Goldstone passes, it would set a precedent in international law which would inevitably be used against Britain.
It is worrying that Cameron appears unable to see this. For the Goldstone Report is a litmus test issue. If the man who opinion polls suggest could well be prime minister by early May does not get the point about Goldstone it is unlikely he will get the point on many other issues in the Middle East.”
I agree that the economy will be the main issue of the day, but it is Cameron’s lack of awareness that you highlighted recently, that becomes a major concern. He is young and has not worked in any position that really will have given him any insight into the ME. It will be interesting to see where Michael Gove is placed within the party, who I think has a deeper knowledge over issues that we are concerned about. Clegg is at the moment a problem and may be come a bigger one as events unfold and the differences of opinion within the coalition give rise to further problems that could split the parties as well as the coalition.
May 12th, 2010 at 9:28 am
Fortunately, Jihad Jenny has retired. Although deprived the pleasure of watching her lose her seat, we can still rejoice in the knowledge that at least one blot on the British body politic has been wiped away.
May 12th, 2010 at 10:49 am
With this philosophically misaligned new coalition government attempting to drive on both sides of the political road and preoccupied with steering the countries economic situation onto a more sustainable course, what hope is there for running down the legal anomaly preventing Israeli officials, both past and present, from entering the U.K. without warrants being issued for their arrest – probably very little in the near future.
May 12th, 2010 at 5:41 pm
But surely Robin you would agree that the government will act on the Universal Jurisdiction loophole?
It was a Conservative commitment…..
May 13th, 2010 at 8:24 am
I saw yesterday WH(new foreign secretary0 on Sky news. It was his first interview..He didnt speak about Israel ..Iran only about Afganistan…He simply did Not want to touch this… But he understands that new war is coming in the Middle East.. recently in an interview to the Jewish Chroniclein he said that @The most urgent thing is the Iranian nuclear program@” and We have consistently been the party arguing for tough sanctions and a strong European approach over the last few years@.
Lets wait and see what he will say after his visit to Washington. While Washington and Moscow do nothing Russia pushes Irans proxis to war with Israel this summer. One of the reasons I think -oil prices.
What WH position on Russia… In London FO forgot about poisoning of Litvinenko and other things. Dont forget that three london papers now in the hands of former KGB agent and Mr Osborne has ties with russian oligarh^)))
May 13th, 2010 at 3:29 pm
The passing of power from Labour to the Conservative/Liberal coalition means the loss of two firmly pro-Israel Prime Ministers over the last thirteen years: Tony Blair, whose refusal to condemn Israel’s incursion into Lebanon in 2006 was telling, and Gordon Brown whose close emotional ties to Israel he inherited from his father.
Against this, as has already been pointed out here, we have an arabist Foreign Office (probably staffed by people like Richard Ingrams – you get the picture) able to exert possibly more influence on a government both preoccupied with domestic matters and with no ‘ideological’ gravitational pull towards Israel.
On the other hand, Israel’s Big Hope is without doubt Michael Gove, a passionate and eloquent advocate of Israel (and I voted Labour!). I think it extremely probable that he will be deferred to by both Cameron and Hague on any remotely “controversial” Israeli actions (i.e “pragmatic” to the rest of us) for which the UK might be expected to express a view. As a Tory member of a mostly Tory cabinet he will have far more influence on such matters than Nick Clegg. He will also be able to keep a beady eye on any anti-Israel/anti-Semitic sentiments seeping out from beneath the topsoil of the traditional Tory public-school breeding grounds.
May 13th, 2010 at 3:54 pm
Very surprisingly you seem to ignore that William Hague joined the “Conservative Friends of Israel”‘s group when he was… 15.
Très cordialement.
May 13th, 2010 at 5:09 pm
Just following up on Oliver’s post, check out this article for a summary of William Hague’s approach to Israel …
http://www.totallyjewish.com/news/national/?content_id=13722
I was interested in his views on the Iranian nuclear weapons programme, which are a bit more vigorous than Labour, but still too cautious for my taste.
He says, “There could also be a great deal of economic instability and attacks by Iran’s proxies in the region, some of whom are on Israel’s borders.” Which means he’s worried about possible interruption to oil flows through the Gulf. I think that should be the least of his worries.
May 15th, 2010 at 12:55 am
Jonathan Posner: Why then the “emotionally” Israel-tied Brown let Milliband, how to say…, cosy up with the likes of an immorally-led (at least according to me) Sweden alone among the big EU-nations and torpedo Jerusalem last December, hah???! (And I’d bet 1000 Ł that Netanyahu scolded him – GB – to the ground for it privately in a missive) His friendliness was pure political opportunism, nothing else. Blair perhaps could be another cake. And even William Hague stumbled in my eyes. Of course they are all hostages to the wider British (Western) situation I painfully admit.