Britain’s national interest is not code for uncritical support of Benjamin Netanyahu
What is the first and chief principle of British foreign policy?
It must, surely, be that of British interests; after all, as Palmerston argued, England has no permanent allies, only permanent interests; “if I might be allowed to express in one sentence the principle which I think ought to guide an English Minister, I would adopt the expression of Canning, and say that with every British Minister the interests of England ought to be the shibboleth of his policy.”
The main interest of Britain then was, as has recently been argued by Andrew Lambert in his new book No More Napoleons, was the separation of France from the Scheldt ports, “the only location from which a full-scale invasion of England might be attempted”.
With the threat of invasion a threat long since faded, what is in Britain’s interests now is less clear; particularly in the Middle East. It is now approaching a year since the horrific 7 October attacks. Those attacks — and the resulting war — have left Britain at a crossroads.
Although debates rage about who is doing the counting, what is clear is that thousands have died. Throughout, Israel has been able to count on much support from the British right. As Sam Bidwell has written in these most august pages:
For many Western conservatives, support for Israel is grounded in a “West versus the rest” narrative which sees the democratic Judeo-Christian world as locked into existential conflict with oriental despotism, encapsulated by Islamist terrorism. Israel, we are told, is an outpost of Western culture in the barbarous Middle East, the first line of defence against an ideology ready to land on Europe’s shores. Should this plucky liberal outpost fall to the Mohammedan tide, our own countries will surely be next.
As a result, Israel has received what has all too often amounted to a blank cheque from many on the right including, in May, Kemi Badenoch; when asked on Sky News if she supported Israel’s actions, Kemi Badenoch denied it vociferously, and countered by stating that that Israel was fighting “a proxy war on Britain’s behalf”. Further, she said it was “not for me to police how Israel are doing that [fighting the war in Gaza].”
We are not bound to Israel by the fact they are the region’s only democracy
But perhaps it is time we did. As Rod Liddle has recently written, “If any other country in the Middle East had behaved as monstrously as Israel has in recent weeks, the jets would be lined up on our runways ready to do a bit of performative bombing.”
Since he wrote that column, a famine has officially been confirmed in Gaza by the UN; “Israel has unequivocal obligations under international law — including the duty of ensuring food and medical supplies of the population”, said UN Secretary General António Guterres. The report finds that by late September, over 640,000 individuals across the Gaza Strip are projected to experience “catastrophic” food insecurity, designated as IPC Phase 5 — the most severe classification. A further 1.14 million people are expected to fall into Phase 4, while an additional 396,000 will face Phase 3 “crisis” conditions. Of course the UN is less than even handed when it comes to Israel and of course Hamas loots aid convoys. But starvation in the Strip “is present and rapidly spreading”, and when a state controls the borders, the airspace, and the flow of humanitarian aid, it cannot plausibly disclaim the consequences of its blockade.
In her interview, Badenoch said that what she really wants to see “is Keir Starmer making sure that he is on the right side of Britain’s national interest.” But if that phrase is to mean anything, it cannot simply be a euphemism for uncritical alignment with Israeli policy.
How long can the right remain comfortable handing Israel a blank cheque to do what it wants? Let us, for the sake of argument, leave aside the sheer inhumanity of what is happening in Gaza for another article and deal with Kemi’s question on its own terms, how does what is happening in Gaza serve Britain’s interests?
Many on the right, in their vociferous and morally blinkered assertion that Israeli actions cannot be criticised, seem not only indifferent to the humanitarian catastrophe but wilfully blind to its consequences for British interests. Chief among them: the destabilisation of neighbouring regions and the potential displacement of millions — refugees who will not be absorbed by Israel, but by Europe. Britain included.
Neighbouring Arab nations have made it clear they will not take Palestinian refugees. Israel is in discussions with Libya, Indonesia, Somaliland, Uganda and South Sudan to resettle Palestinian refugees there, although nothing has been agreed. Such talks are reportedly linked to a broader Israeli push to encourage mass emigration from Gaza during the ongoing war with Hamas.
It’s clear that Israel doesn’t really care where they go. Recently, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: “All those who are concerned for the Palestinians and say they want to help the Palestinians should open their doors to them. What are you preaching to us for? We’re not pushing them out — we’re enabling them to leave … first of all, [leaving] combat zones, and also the Strip itself, if they want to.”
Others have been more clear; Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called for the “voluntary emigration” of Palestinians from Gaza following the war, suggesting that such relocation would help Israel reclaim former settlements and permanently eliminate the prospect of a Palestinian state. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir echoed this sentiment, proposing that Israel should “encourage the migration of Gaza residents” to other countries, including European ones, to make way for Israeli resettlement. Defence Minister Israel Katz, meanwhile, has perhaps been the most explicit, saying that; “Countries like Spain, Ireland, Norway, and others, which have levelled accusations and false claims against Israel over its actions in Gaza, are legally obligated to allow any Gaza resident to enter their territories.”
What this amounts to is forced replacement of the Palestinian people, which it appears some in the Israeli government are seeking to use as a form of punishment against those who criticise Israel’s actions. Europe is staring down the barrel of a deliberately engineered replication of the Syrian migration crisis. This is not the action of an ally.
We are not, in fact, bound to them by the fact they are the region’s only democracy. Democracy is not a talisman that absolves a state of its actions, nor a shield behind which any behaviour may be justified; it is just a system of government. Nor are we bound to them by “shared Judeo-Christian values’. I invite anyone who believes this argument to name one, and then name one Israel has not violated in its conduct of this war. So, in the right-wing political equivalent of reaching for a policeman’s gun, it’s time to say that Israel’s interests and Britain’s are not the same.
