(Owen Franken/Getty Images)

For all their drama, and barring an Israeli counter-escalation, the weekendâs events do not change the course of the Gaza War. Six months in, the campaign has been a disaster for all concerned, apart from Iran and its regional allies. The suffering has primarily been borne by Gazaâs Palestinian population, more than 33,000 of whom, including 13,000 children, have been killed, in figures from Gazaâs Health Ministry accepted as accurate by Israelâs intelligence services, if not its Western supporters.
Yet Israel, too, has very little to show for its incursion, launched with sudden fury, but no discernible exit plan. As the IDF has withdrawn the vast majority of its troops, the Hamas leadership remains intact, the group can still fire rockets into Israel and is still killing Israeli soldiers on the ground. Netanyahuâs fragile Right-wing coalition â which survived months of mass protests even before Hamasâs brutal October rampage â is increasingly unpopular within Israel, with 71% of Israelis desiring him to step down.
Even as Netanyahu, against the Biden administrationâs expressed will, pledges to launch an assault on Rafah, where hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees have fled, his own defence minister openly contradicts him, asserting that no date for the operation has been set. When even the most committed American supporters of Israel, such as the New York Timesâs Bret Stephens, and Thomas Friedman, feel compelled to state that âIn a thousand years, Jews will remember Netanyahuâs name with scornâ for his âutterly insane strategyâ which has âlocked Israel into a politically unwinnable warâ, it looks increasingly apparent that Israelâs conduct of the Gaza War will be remembered by history as a diplomatic and strategic error of historic proportions.
Yet there is very little reflection of these dynamics to be found in British conservative discourse which, for parochial culture-war reasons, committed itself to Israelâs ill-thought-out campaign early on and now finds itself held hostage by Netanyahuâs ineptitude. Like much of Britainâs talk-show populism, as a political strategy it is not a very popular one: even a plurality of Conservative voters now believes Britain should withhold arms sales to Israel, a debate roiling our moribund Conservative Party. While the optics of simultaneously dropping aid on Gaza and arming Israel indeed look absurd, in truth British arms sales represent only a miniscule fraction of Israelâs military capabilities, with the increasingly heated debate on both sides existing in a purely symbolic realm. Britain has no cause to enter this war, yet our political class seems determined nevertheless to reap all the domestic turmoil involvement would bring. Indeed, the full-throttle support for Israelâs war displayed by Suella Braverman or the Daily Mail columnist Boris Johnson is worthy of analysis for its pure novelty. It signifies a partisan approach to the Middle Eastâs most intractable conflict that is a startling divergence from a century of British, and particularly Tory, policy.
For a party that has failed to escape Thatcherâs long shadow, afflicted in its dotage with a cargo-cult weakness for matronly blondes of dubious merit, perhaps what is most remarkable is how far the current Conservative Partyâs aspiring populist wing diverges from Thatcherâs own approach to the conflict. Following its invasion of Lebanon in 1982, a disaster that she correctly foresaw would birth new and harder threats to both the Western order and Israelâs own security, Thatcher placed an embargo on British weapons sales to Israel, a policy that was not lifted until 1994. Her rationale, as she told ITN, was that Israeli troops had âgone across the borders of Israel, a totally independent country, which is not a party to the hostility and there are very very great hostilities, bombing, terrible things happening there. Of course one has to condemn them. It is someone elseâs country. You must condemn that. After all, that is why we have gone to the Falklands, to repossess our country which has been taken by someone else.â
A famously unsentimental woman, Thatcher framed the conflict in terms that seem strikingly empathetic to todayâs eyes. In 1985, she visited an âutterly hopelessâ Palestinian refugee camp in Jordan, where, as she recounts in her 1993 memoirs, The Downing Street Years, âI talked to one old lady, half blind, lying in the shade of a tree outside her familyâs hut. She was said to be about 100. But she had one thing above all on her mind, and spoke about it: the restoration of the Palestiniansâ rights.â For Thatcher â perhaps counterintuitively, viewed through the prism of todayâs Conservative party â the âplight of the landless Palestiniansâ was a major foreign-policy concern. Under her helm, the British government worked hard to bring about a peace deal, though her efforts were frustrated at every turn by both Israeli and American intransigence: as she âscrawledâ on one cable from the British ambassador in Washington: âThe US just does not realise the resentment she is causing in the Middle East.â
Striving to find a workable peace, Thatcher asserted the only possible solution to the conflict was an approach which balanced âthe right of all the states in the region â including Israel â to existence and security, but also demanded justice for all peoples, which implied recognition of of the Palestiniansâ right to self-determinationâ. Writing of her visit to Israel in 1986, the first by a British prime minister, Thatcher remarked that âThe Israelis knew⌠that they were dealing with someone who harboured no lurking hostility towards them, who understood their anxieties, but who was not going to pursue an unqualified Zionist approach.â Instead, she âbelieved that the real challenge was to strengthen moderate Palestinians, probably in association with Jordan, who would eventually push aside the⌠extremists. But this would never happen if Israel did not encourage it; and the miserable conditions under which Arabs on the West Bank and in Gaza were having to live only made things worse.â
The British-Jewish historian Azriel Bermantâs excellent 2016 book, Margaret Thatcher and the Middle East, makes for enlightening and perhaps discomfiting reading in the light of the Gaza War. An idealistic supporter of both Anglo-Jewry and Israel, whose own daughter Carol volunteered on a kibbutz, Thatcher nevertheless approached the country with a critical detachment. With a keener eye to Israelâs internal dynamics than Braverman or Johnson, Thatcher viewed the Right-wing Likud leaders Menachim Begin and Yitzhak Shamir with distaste, as former terrorists against the British state with whom she was forced to deal by circumstance. Her preference throughout was for the Labor leader Shimon Peres who she viewed as a moderate, committed to a lasting peace settlement. To Thatcher, peace would entail not an independent Palestinian state â she thought this unviable, and most probably undesirable â but the incorporation of the West Bank and Gaza under the rule of Jordanâs Anglophile King Hussein.
Yet when Thatcher signed on to an European Community declaration of support for Palestinian statehood, just days after the PLO confirmed its commitment to the destruction of Israel, and was condemned for this by the Labour leader Jim Callaghan â British attitudes on the conflict were yet to assume their present form â Thatcher responded in robust terms. âThe words in the communiquĂŠ I support entirely,â she told the House. âThey concern the right of the Palestinian people to determine their own future. If one wishes to call that âself- determinationâ, I shall not quarrel with it. I am interested that the Right Hon. Gentleman appears to be attempting to deny that right. I do not understand how anyone can demand a right for people on one side of a boundary and deny it to people on the other side of that boundary. That seems to deny certain rights, or to allocate them with discrimination from one person to another.â
Strikingly, Thatcher condemned Israel for its annexation of the Golan Heights from Syria, for its attack on Saddam Husseinâs Osirak nuclear power plant, and for its seizure of Palestinian land for settlements, including the housing of Soviet Jewish refugees: as she told the House in 1990, âSoviet Jews who leave the Soviet Union â and we have urged for years that they should be allowed to leave â should not be settled in the Occupied Territories or in East Jerusalem. It undermines our position when those people are settled in land that really belongs to others.â Indeed, as she later remarked in her memoirs, âI only wished that Israeli emphasis on the human rights of the Russian refuseniks was matched by proper appreciation of the plight of landless and stateless Palestinians.â With such sentiments, it is doubtful that todayâs self-proclaimed Thatcherites would find a prominent place for Thatcher herself in their nascent faction.
While Thatcherâs views on Israel were balanced by the need to placate opinion in her 20% Jewish seat â the stated âFinchley factorâ frequently cropped up in moments of self-doubt â her moderate stance on the conflict was sustained by the diversity of opinion then held by British Jews on Israelâs conduct. As Bermant notes: âWithin British Jewry, the consensus on Israel had been seriously eroded with the invasion of Lebanon and, particularly, in the wake of the Sabra and Shatila massacre,â with the Chief Rabbi, Immanuel Jakobovits, releasing a statement condemning the massacre, while âan editorial in the Anglo-Jewish newspaper, The Jewish Chronicle, called on Begin and Sharon to resign in the wake of the killingsâ. In some ways, it could be argued that British Jewish opinion on the Palestine question back then was more akin to the conflicted attitudes expressed by American Jews today, while Thatcher lamented the then hardline American support for Israel, which she felt distorted US policy in self-defeating ways.
Yet just as Labourâs about-turn on Israel followed the 1982 Lebanon invasion, American attitudes to the country are today undergoing a historic convulsion, with what are sure to be significant consequences to Israelâs future security. The Biden administration is under increasing domestic pressure for its support for Netanyahuâs campaign, with even organs of middlebrow liberal opinion like The Atlantic, CNN and the Daily Show turning against Israelâs war and Americaâs support for it. The increasingly radical American Right is also turning against Israel, expressing dissent in often markedly antisemitic ways. In this dramatically shifting political landscape, the discourse in Britainâs media sphere seems strangely parochial, partly a reflection of American conservative fashions a generation ago, and partly an expression of Britainâs own anxieties over mass immigration, projected, like Brexit, onto more comfortable rhetorical ground.
Cameronâs largely moderate stance on the conflict, supporting Israelâs right to strike Hamas after its October brutalities while emphasising Britainâs opposition to Israelâs immoderate violence against Palestinian (and now British) civilians, and its commitment to a future Palestinian state, is broadly the correct one, even if the Conservative partyâs Overton Window has drifted closer to Likud in intervening years than Thatcher would have permitted. Thatcher herself, as Bermant notes, âunderlined that Israelâs policies were having a problematic impact on the geopolitics of the region: it was very unhelpful that the United States was being perceived as âIsraelâs lawyerâ, while the Soviet Union was being seen âas the friend of the Arabsââ â a dynamic Putin is happily exploiting this today, while Americaâs stock dwindles in both the Red Sea and the court of world opinion. Instead, Bermant observes: âThatcher argued for Britain and the EC to play a role as âa third partyâ which was ânot bound by US or Soviet policies.ââ Though perhaps, as I argued at the beginning of the war, it would have been better for us to stay out of the matter entirely: better for Britain, better for the Palestinians, and ultimately better for Israel and its Western advocates.
When the war ends, when journalists are allowed into Gaza as the full civilian toll is unearthed and counted, the more outlandish expressions of solidarity with Netanyahuâs campaign made by Right-wing pundits will surely come to be seen as a needless, unforced error. As Bermant recently observed: âthe Netanyahu government refuses to spell out its objectives for the end of the Gaza war and has allowed the most extreme elements in his government to exert influence over the management of the war⌠Israelâs prime minister has yet to come out against those in his government who have called for the displacement of Palestinians and the Jewish resettlement of Gaza.â The results have been, and will be, precisely what any detached observer or sufficiently critical friend would have expected.
Losing the American support on which its continued existence depends, with France now mooting sanctions against Israel, and a simultaneous genocide case working its way through the Hague, Netanyahu has dramatically worsened Israelâs strategic position. Within the context of this self-inflicted diplomatic injury, the focus on Right-wing discourse or campus radicals or pro-Palestine protests looks, at the most charitable interpretation, wrongheaded.
Perhaps the last word is best left to Thatcher herself. Summing up her years-long engagement with the region, she noted that âthe United States, which was the power most responsible for the establishment of the state of Israel, will and must always stand behind Israelâs security. It is equally, though, right that the Palestinians should be restored in their land and dignity: and, as often happens in my experience, what is morally right eventually turns out to be politically expedient. Removing, even in limited measure, the Palestinian grievance is a necessary if not sufficient condition for cutting the cancer of Middle East terrorism out by the roots. The only way this can happen, as has long been clear, is for Israel to exchange âland for peaceâ, returning occupied territories to the Palestinians in exchange for credible undertakings to respect Israelâs security.â
More Likudist than the vast majority of Israelis, more uncompromisingly heartless than Thatcher herself, the Tory commentators who claim the Iron Ladyâs mantle would do well to reflect on her example.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
Subscribe