Alex Cole-Hamilton’s recent article on LDV is right about one thing: Palestine should be run by Palestinians. Israelis, likewise, should determine their own future in peace and security. But that aspiration is not advanced by presenting a highly selective reading of history that assigns Britain primary responsibility for a century of conflict while overlooking the choices made by Palestinian leaders and the wider Arab world.
The central premise of his article is that Britain deliberately prevented Palestinian self-determination and that today’s conflict flows principally from decisions taken during the Mandate. That is a powerful political narrative. It is also an incomplete and misleading one.
The Balfour Declaration did not promise a Jewish national home in a political vacuum. It also committed Britain to safeguarding the civil and religious rights of the non-Jewish communities in Palestine. It reflected international recognition, later endorsed by the League of Nations, that the Jewish people had legitimate national aspirations in their historic homeland alongside the rights of the Arab population. The tragedy of the Mandate was not simply British policy. It was the failure of successive leaders on all sides to embrace compromise.
Alex Cole-Hamilton argues that Britain denied Palestinians democratic representation. Yet he overlooks the repeated rejection by Arab leaders of proposals that would have created Arab and Jewish states living side by side. The Peel Commission in 1937 and the UN Partition Plan in 1947 both offered opportunities for two states. Neither was accepted by the Arab leadership. Those decisions, no less than Britain’s actions, shaped the decades that followed.
His call for Palestine to be run by Palestinians also raises an important contemporary question. Mahmoud Abbas is now in the twenty-first year of what was intended to be a four-year presidential term. Palestinians have not elected a president since 2005 or a legislature since 2006. The absence of democratic accountability within the Palestinian Authority cannot simply be attributed to Britain or to Israel. Indeed, this underlines the importance of the Liberal Democrats’ long-standing support for free and fair Palestinian elections as an essential step towards establishing democratic legitimacy, strengthening accountable institutions, and creating the conditions for a lasting two-state peace.
Indeed, this point was made compellingly in these pages by the Palestinian political reformer Samer Sinijlawi following the recent Liberal Democrat delegation to Jerusalem and Ramallah. He argued that Palestinian politics is trapped between the militancy of Hamas and the stagnation and corruption associated with Mahmoud Abbas, and called instead for a liberal alternative founded on elections, transparency and institutional reform. His message was clear: Palestinians themselves must renew democratic legitimacy and build accountable institutions if statehood is to succeed. That liberal vision deserves far greater attention than another attempt to explain today’s failures primarily through Britain’s colonial past.
Nor should the Arab Revolt of 1936 to 1939 be remembered solely through the lens of British repression. Britain’s response undoubtedly included actions that deserve scrutiny and criticism. But the revolt itself also involved attacks on Jewish civilians and the murder of Arabs accused of cooperation or moderation. History is diminished when only one side’s suffering is acknowledged.
Similarly, describing the displacement of Palestinians in 1948 without recognising that it occurred in the context of a war following the rejection of partition presents only half the story. The conflict created two refugee populations: Palestinians and Jews driven from Arab countries. Both deserve recognition. Neither should be erased from the historical record.
The article also suggests that modern Israeli policy is the direct inheritance of British colonial rule. That overlooks the reality that Israel is a democratic state facing complex security challenges while also making decisions that deserve criticism where they undermine peace or breach international law. Settlement expansion should be opposed. So should violence and extremism wherever they arise. But criticism is not strengthened by reducing history to a single colonial explanation.
If we genuinely want two states living side by side in peace, we should support democratic renewal within Palestinian society, encourage responsible leadership on both sides, and return the focus to direct negotiations rather than competing historical indictments. Peace will depend on leaders who are prepared to compromise, not simply on revisiting Britain’s past.
Britain’s record during the Mandate was imperfect and, at times, deeply flawed. It should continue to be examined honestly. But making Britain the principal author of today’s conflict risks absolving contemporary leaders of responsibility for the choices they continue to make. The past matters. So does the present.
Peace will not come from assigning exclusive blame to one country for a century of history. It will come from recognising that both peoples have legitimate national aspirations, both have suffered profoundly, and both deserve governments that derive their authority from democratic consent rather than historical grievance.
* Gavin Stollar OBE is the Honorary Chair of Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel. He is a former Parish and District Councillor, Parliamentary Candidate and parliamentary aide to Rt. Hon Charles Kennedy during his first two years as Party Leader.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Reform figures in Wales linked to far-right social media networks
Councillor Martin Allen joins Liberal Democrats from the Greens
Boy the home office tried to deport at 9 wins British chess championship at 17
Peter Davies
Barry Rhodes
Peter Martin
Simon Horsman
Peter Chambers
15 Comments
The British promised a Jewish state on land where 90% of the population was not Jewish. Hundreds of thousands of Jews then moved to the area so that by the end of the British mandate, around a third of the population was Jewish.
British policy was responsible for creating the situation that resulted in the establishment of the Israeli state in 1948 and the calamity that befell the Palestinian people.
A well presented article from Gavin, sadly immediately followed by a one-sided response from someone who prefers their narratives to be black and white and anti British. The latter will doubtless appeal to those who like their thoughts on history to be reductable to the simple slogan “Britain is bad”, while the former presents a more considered view, helping people understand enough of the whole picture to obtain a meaningful insight.
One is liberal, considered and helpful, the other is authoritarian, intemperate and divisive.
Keep up the good work Gavin.
Gavin, you quote “that Palestinian politics is trapped between the militancy of Hamas and the stagnation and corruption associated with Mahmoud Abbas” also that “Palestinians themselves must renew democratic legitimacy and build accountable institutions if statehood is to succeed.” What you conveniently omit is that the Nation of Palestine is not just under occupation, but one that is stifling any chance of a free and fair election including East Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza, by destroying infrastructure in many places, separating the Palestinians with blockades, barriers, checkpoints, gates etc, allowing the unhindered terrorism of armed illegal Israeli settlers, the destruction of homes, agricultural land, olive groves and businesses, not to mention the imprisonment of Palestinian politicians, civilians without charge or trial and even children and so much more. That barely scrapes the surface of Israel’s long and, now not so slow, attempted destruction of Palestinian society.
The idea that Israel is a democracy is also far-fetched as it not only excludes all those under Israeli occupation but also includes a State Law that only entitles Jews to self-determination. You cannot have democracy without equality. Even within the area accepted as Israel, Palestinians are second-class citizens and worse.
All previous offers to Palestinians have been heavily weighted in favour of Israel despite the land belonging to Palestinians. You know that as well as I do.
There’s a lot of truth in what Gavin says, but as was put to me by an international law expert, if you steal someone’s wallet and then offer to give some of the money back, that is a “compromise “ that will appeal to you more than to the victim. European Jews had no right to take land once, possibly, inhabited by extremely distant relatives, any more than I have any right to turf out the owners of land my forefathers lived in three thousand years ago.
The historical context is arguably capable of being read in different ways, but I would like to hear the argument that justifies the wholesale slaughter of civilians and ethnic cleansing that we’ve been witnessing in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel claims to be an island of civilised democracy in the Middle East, but stands accused of genocide in the eyes of the world. What Netanyahu’s government has been, and is, doing is unforgivable, whichever way people construe the historical background.
There was no war when Jewish forces entered my dad’s village, attacked and killed my family. Two of my dad’s cousins (who were nine and eleven at the time) were brutally shot dead; my aunt was shot but survived, and my father managed to escape. The village had been celebrating the opening of a new school, and the atmosphere was joyous before the attack occurred (all documented in Ilan Pappe s book).
This 1948 campaign of ethnic cleansing against 500 Palestinian villages and innocent civilians was, in my view, an act of terror rather than war—a perspective supported by the documentation found in the work of Israeli historian Ilan Pappé. I believe that denying the Nakba constitutes a form of hatred against Palestinians and should not be propagated or dignified. My family were not at war, they were dancing and singing when they were brutally murdered, it’s called the Nakbha and we commemorate this on May 15th each year.
Jewish forces also bombed the British headquarters and then the British left and Israel was created.
Ultimately, Israel needs to define its borders. For over a decade, many Arab and Muslim nations have indicated a willingness to recognize and protect Israel, provided there is a clear demarcation between its territory and that of Palestine. This has nothing to do with Palestinian internal politics. The internal politics isn’t another country’s business.
If Israel truly desired peace, this would be achievable; it would mark its borders like any country.
This piece feels detached from the reality on the ground – as witnessed both in history and in the distressing years in Palestine/Israel since. My grandfather, a senior British Army officer, was based in Haifa, and frequently in Jerusalem, during the Mandate (late 1930s). He would be as disturbed by this article as he was by British excesses and duplicity in the 1930s. There is nothing wrong with facing up to the errors of our history. In fact it is essential to learn from them and to acknowledge our mistakes if our children and grandchildren are to experience any kind of peace, respect for law, and global stability. As Alex Cole-Hamilton clearly recognises.
Gavin Stollar’s arguments are hardly convincing. Britain was patently duplicitous in betraying its own promises for Palestinian self-determination. Britain’s most compelling pro-Israel apologist the late historian, Sir Martin Gilbert, stated in 2011: “The centre-piece of British Mandatory policy was the withholding of representative institutions for as long as there was, in Palestine, an Arab majority.”
If Israel wanted peace and security, why has it always declined to define its boundaries? Or, since Stollar argues Israel embraced the 1947 Partition Plan, honour the boundaries it specified? Not only has it done neither but its imperial appetite has continued to grow, despite its denials ever since June 1967.
It is disappointing to see a Liberal Democrat parliamentarian criticised for raising the need for Britain to confront its actions during the Mandate period, particularly when this is a view shared by many across the party.
In March, 16 Liberal Democrat parliamentarians signed a cross-party letter supporting calls for an official apology from the British government for its unlawful actions during the British occupation of Palestine. More information here:-
https://news.sky.com/story/dozens-of-mps-call-for-formal-apology-over-britains-actions-during-palestine-administration-13519230
As Layla Moran, one of the letter’s signatories, has said ‘During its occupation of Palestine, Britain violated a series of international laws that were binding at the time. The consequences of those actions have profoundly shaped the conflict we witness today, yet successive governments have refused to acknowledge this record or offer a formal apology. If Britain is serious about promoting peace in Gaza today, it must begin by confronting its historical role, recognising the harm caused, and taking meaningful responsibility for it’.
Acknowledging Britain’s historical responsibilities does not mean ignoring the complexities of the conflict or the responsibilities of leaders today. It means recognising that a more honest reckoning with the past is an essential part of building a just and lasting peace.
Let’s hope the Palestinian elections scheduled for later this year do go ahead – they are indeed long overdue. The last attempt to hold elections was frustrated by Netanyahu who made it clear that Palestinians living in East Jerusalem which is recognised as part of the West Bank would not be allowed to vote. It is widely believed that Joe Biden discouraged them from going ahead anyway because he feared who might get elected. The strongest candidate for President languishes in an Israeli jail. It was hoped he would be released as part of prisoner swaps but he is far too popular for Netanyahu to risk that. His name is Marwan Bargouti and he is regarded by many as the potential Nelson Mandela of Palestine.
Gavin’s opening paragraph talks about what is not advancing the case for Israelis (and Palestinians) determining their own future. He says the problem Israelis face is biased rendering of the history of the region prior to the establishment of the Israeli statee. Far more relevant for most of us has been Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians over the many decades since 1947, especially now, the probable genocide in Gaza. Turning the focus towards who did what when the British were in charge might take the heat off Israel for a moment, but it is extremely unhelpful in the long run. Israelis need to come to terms with the crimes they have committed under Netanyahu, and find a better path for the future. They won’t achieve that by blaming other people.
Palestinians have a right to self-determination and self-definition but Pro-Palestinians cannot have it both ways. Palestinians can be indigenous or Arab but they can’t be both. At the risk of pointing out the obvious, it is disingenuous on the extreme to say “Israel should define its borders” and at the same time “the land was stolen in 1948 in the Catastrophe (Naqba) of the founding of the Jewish State.” Self-determination for both groups must be based on mutual trust which can only come about when the hate stops.
I’d echo much of what Gavin has said. Palestine needs democratic renewal to give its leaders a renewed mandate and the legitimacy needed to move the country forward.
Democracy matters everywhere. While the UK can only dream of having a truly proportional electoral system like Israel’s, Palestine needs to show that its citizens’ voices matter too. Mahmoud Abbas has remained in office since before I graduated from university in 2008, and the absence of elections has increasingly weakened democratic accountability.
Palestine should hold elections as soon possible, and Israel should support the democratic process. A legitimate Palestinian leadership, backed by a clear electoral mandate, would strengthen the prospects for meaningful negotiations.
Both sides have responsibilities if the region is to move forward. Renewed democratic legitimacy in Palestine, alongside a commitment to constructive engagement from Israel, would be an important step towards a viable two-state solution.
History is more complicated than a single culprit. Gavin’s central point is not that Britain bears no responsibility, but that history cannot honestly be reduced to Britain alone. Britain made serious mistakes during the Mandate, but so did Arab, Palestinian and later Israeli leaders. Ignoring the repeated rejection of partition proposals in 1937 and 1947, and the role those decisions played in prolonging the conflict, produces an incomplete account. If we believe history matters, then all of it matters – not only the parts that reinforce a preferred narrative.
@Alan Cohen
There is no doubt that serious mistakes have been made by all sides in failing to take opportunities to find a solution, but Britain is primarily responsible for creating the problem in the first place. Sadly, the Palestinians are the ones who continue to pay the price.