The government’s language on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict may have grim consequences

There is a fundamental problem with the Government’s increasingly strident approach to Israel.  You cannot have a moral foreign policy without consistency.  Britain increasingly appears to be applying a different level of scrutiny, condemnation and political pressure to one conflict above all others and this hypocrisy should concern everyone.

At the outset, I want to be unequivocal.  Attacks on Palestinians, intimidation, vandalism and attempts to drive people from their homes should be strongly condemned. Those responsible should be swiftly brought to justice.

However, something has changed in the way this Government talks about the conflict. The language has become extraordinary and it is escalating.  The Foreign Secretary has described the situation as a “moral emergency” and referred to it as a “stain on the conscience of the world.” The Prime Minister has described it as a “scar on the conscience of the world.” Terms such as “ethnic cleansing” have also entered the Government’s vocabulary with a frequency that the Jewish community have never heard from a British government. “Moral emergency” is not ordinary diplomatic language. It is language of the highest moral alarm that is rarely if ever used.

Once politicians begin describing one conflict in the language of stains, scars and moral emergencies, they are no longer simply criticising a government’s policy. They are creating an overwhelmingly emotive framework through which the public is being encouraged to understand the entire conflict. Words matter enormously to a community that has lived through centuries of persecution and understands precisely how quickly political language can spill over into hostility towards Jews. This ultimately resulted in Jihad Al Shamie being motivated to attack our community on Yom Kippur screaming obscenities about Israel as he was desperately trying to enter the Heaton Park Synagogue to continue his murderous rampage.

That is why concerns have been raised directly with Downing Street about the tone being adopted. The Government should understand that language which may be intended to condemn the actions of a foreign government does not exist in a vacuum. British Jews and those who hate us hear it too. There is a world of difference between robust criticism and actions that appears deliberately designed to maximise outrage.

It is easy to condemn settlement expansion without using the most inflammatory terminology available. It is possible to demand action on settler violence without resorting to extreme historical comparisons. It is also feasible to support Palestinian rights without reducing the entire conflict to a morality tale in which one side carries all responsibility and the other carries almost none.

If Britain genuinely believes in a two-state solution, it should demand more from the Palestinian Authority, not less. That means serious political and institutional reform, democratic accountability, tackling corruption, confronting incitement and extremism, halting payments to the families of convicted terrorists, altering the antisemitic school curriculum and demonstrating that Palestinian governance can provide a credible partner for peace.

Britain should use its influence to make that expectation meaningful. If the Government is prepared to use diplomatic pressure and economic leverage to change Israeli policy, it should be equally ready to press Palestinian leaders to undertake the reforms necessary for a viable, democratic and peaceful Palestinian state. A two-state solution requires difficult choices from both sides, not demands placed on one side alone.

That brings us to the question being increasingly asked within Britain’s Jewish community. When you look at the world around us, what is unique about this conflict that makes it so disproportionately deserving of Britain’s political attention? This was articulated by Jack Rankin MP during the parliamentary debate on the subject. There is war in Europe, tragedy in Nepal, unrest in Kashmir, persecution of the Uyghurs, Sudan is experiencing one of the world’s most devastating wars and Yemen continues to face an extraordinary humanitarian and security crisis. Tragically, political instability and humanitarian challenges are prevalent all over the world. Yet the intensity of parliamentary and ministerial attention directed towards Israel is entirely disproportionate.

This is particularly striking when the Government’s Middle East policy seems to consume so much political oxygen. Britain has finite diplomatic resources, political capital and influence.Those resources should be deployed according to a coherent set of principles, not according to which conflict generates the greatest domestic pressure or media attention. If Britain condemns conduct because it believes it is wrong, then that principle should be applied consistently. In the foreign policy space, the new administration has focused fleetingly on Ukraine and no other issue apart from this conflict.

This is not about defending Israel from legitimate criticism. It is about asking whether Britain is pursuing a foreign policy rooted in principle or one increasingly shaped by opportunism and political expediency. British Jews are watching this unfold through a very particular lens. They are living with heightened security. They are seeing the consequences of international rhetoric play out on our streets. They know that when Israel dominates the political conversation, antisemitism always follows. We therefore have every right to ask our government to choose its words carefully. That does not mean demanding silence but to speak responsibly.

Government should ask itself a simple question. Would they use the same language, apply the same urgency and impose the same consequences if the same conduct were taking place somewhere else in the world? If the answer is no, then something is wrong.  Britain should be an ally for peace, not an amplifier of double standards. A genuinely moral and strategic foreign policy demands discipline. Without consistency in this increasingly complex world, morality becomes little more than selective politics dressed up as principle.

Mark Adlestone is Chairman of the Jewish Representative Council of Greater Manchester & Region