Natasha Gill: Britain's Historic Role in West Asia
[Natasha Gill is a research associate at Columbia University, New York]
The reprimand of Israel by David Miliband, the U.K. Foreign Secretary, resonated sharply in an already difficult week for Israel. But Britain can do more to influence West Asia than register a complaint, expel a Mossad officer, or sit on the sidelines as Washington pursues its Sisyphean efforts to renew the peace process.
Of all the western powers it is Britain that has a unique responsibility to Israelis and Palestinians, and something unique to offer both parties. After all, Britain was the original third party to the Palestine triangle. From the beginning of the British Mandate in 1922 to their great escape from Palestine in 1948, it was the British who lived in suffocating proximity to the parties — an intimacy that neither the U.S. nor any other nation has experienced....
Indeed, Britain was not simply a bystander. Having made promises to each side during the First World War, enshrined its incompatible “dual obligations” in the Balfour declaration of 1917, and implemented contradictory policies for some 30 years, it shared responsibility for the conflict's shape and evolution.
A decision openly to address Britain's role could have an impact on the most unbridgeable gap between Palestinians and Israelis: the question of ultimate responsibility for the conflict....
Britain could also recall its original pre-Holocaust moral support for Zionism as a movement that sought to address the escalating threats to Jewish minorities from exclusivist forms of European nationalism. Israelis might see this as a more powerful form of recognition than any statement the Palestinians may be forced to utter under duress. Of course, the fundamental matters that define the conflict today will not be magically assuaged by symbolic gestures. In fact, an excessive focus on these issues has often provided a convenient stalling tactic for those who want to avoid moving forward on a peace process. But these disagreements are not likely to go away, and progress towards defusing the issue of responsibility now can help provide a more secure way forward, should there be movement beyond the current impasse.
While the U.S. struggles to invent its future as an honest broker, Britain might find its relevance in the Arab-Israeli conflict merely by recalling its past: and to tap into its historical knowledge and reclaim its role as a member of the original Palestine triangle.
Read entire article at The Hindu
The reprimand of Israel by David Miliband, the U.K. Foreign Secretary, resonated sharply in an already difficult week for Israel. But Britain can do more to influence West Asia than register a complaint, expel a Mossad officer, or sit on the sidelines as Washington pursues its Sisyphean efforts to renew the peace process.
Of all the western powers it is Britain that has a unique responsibility to Israelis and Palestinians, and something unique to offer both parties. After all, Britain was the original third party to the Palestine triangle. From the beginning of the British Mandate in 1922 to their great escape from Palestine in 1948, it was the British who lived in suffocating proximity to the parties — an intimacy that neither the U.S. nor any other nation has experienced....
Indeed, Britain was not simply a bystander. Having made promises to each side during the First World War, enshrined its incompatible “dual obligations” in the Balfour declaration of 1917, and implemented contradictory policies for some 30 years, it shared responsibility for the conflict's shape and evolution.
A decision openly to address Britain's role could have an impact on the most unbridgeable gap between Palestinians and Israelis: the question of ultimate responsibility for the conflict....
Britain could also recall its original pre-Holocaust moral support for Zionism as a movement that sought to address the escalating threats to Jewish minorities from exclusivist forms of European nationalism. Israelis might see this as a more powerful form of recognition than any statement the Palestinians may be forced to utter under duress. Of course, the fundamental matters that define the conflict today will not be magically assuaged by symbolic gestures. In fact, an excessive focus on these issues has often provided a convenient stalling tactic for those who want to avoid moving forward on a peace process. But these disagreements are not likely to go away, and progress towards defusing the issue of responsibility now can help provide a more secure way forward, should there be movement beyond the current impasse.
While the U.S. struggles to invent its future as an honest broker, Britain might find its relevance in the Arab-Israeli conflict merely by recalling its past: and to tap into its historical knowledge and reclaim its role as a member of the original Palestine triangle.