In 2021, I wrote a Lib Dem Voice article warning that our Party’s stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is misaligned with that of our ‘sister’ party in Israel, Yesh Atid.
Over four years later, those concerns have not diminished. Yesh Atid continues to pay occasional lip service to a two-state solution. In practice, however, the party has repeatedly aligned itself with the assumptions and priorities of the Israeli nationalist mainstream, while failing to meaningfully challenge, and at times actively enabling, the blatantly illegal actions of the Netanyahu-Smotrich-Ben Gvir government. Lapid’s hardline rhetoric on territorial expansion and Palestinian statehood, admonishment of the ICC arrest warrants against Netanyahu and Gallant, and most recently his formalised political alliance with right-wing nationalist Naftali Bennett in a joint party list entitled ‘together’ (Be-Yachad) all point in the same direction. Whereas Yesh Atid adopts a liberal stance on certain domestic matters in Israel, including protections for the queer community, it is clearly not offering a liberal alternative on the question of Palestine.
In February this year, Lapid expressed support for expanding the Israeli state to its “biblical borders.” suggesting that Israeli territory could one day extend as far as Iraq. Months earlier, responding to the recognition of Palestine by the UK, Portugal, Australia and Canada, Lapid described the move as “a diplomatic disaster, a bad move and a reward for terror.” These are not the words of a man truly committed to the two-state solution.
Nor has this rhetoric been merely symbolic. In October 2025, Yesh Atid MKs voted in favour of annexing Maale Adumim, one of the largest and most strategically significant Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, despite annexation being clearly prohibited under international law.
This record is consistent with Lapid’s time in government. During the Bennett-Lapid coalition government from 2021 to 2022, settlement expansion not only continued but accelerated, with higher rates of settlement construction than in the eight prior years under Netanyahu. In this context, the notion that Yesh Atid represents a meaningful ideological alternative on the occupation has become increasingly difficult to sustain.
In October 2024, the Knesset passed two Bills outlawing the operations in Israel of UNRWA, the UN body responsible for the coordination of aid programmes for Palestinian refugees. Every single one of Yesh Atid’s MKs voted in favour of these bills, which as the ICJ held last summer undermine Israel’s obligations to facilitate rather than hinder the operation of UN agencies.
As for Lapid’s position regarding Gaza, when told in a November 2023 Sky News interview that 12,000 people in Gaza had been killed, he replied “good riddance.” More recently, as international condemnation of Israel’s conduct has intensified, he has adopted a more critical stance, albeit ostensibly only for instrumental reasons:, His November 2025 interview with Sky News focused on Israel’s global standing, not its actions.
Yesh Atid’s electoral pact with Naftali Bennett should not, therefore, be understood as an abrupt ideological shift, but as the logical culmination of a trajectory long underway. A former leader of the Yesha Council (a body seeking to represent the interests of settlers in the West Bank and, formerly, Gaza), Bennett has consistently rejected Palestinian statehood and openly advocates permanent Israeli sovereignty across the occupied Palestinian territory. He has also stated that, if elected, Israel would retain control over large parts of Gaza indefinitely, stressing that he will not cede “one centimeter to the enemy.”
Moreover, at the alliance’s launch, Bennett explicitly ruled out ‘Arab’ parties as legitimate coalition partners, including Mansour Abbas’ party Ra’am which formed part of the previous Bennett-Lapid coalition. Arab citizens make up around one-fifth of Israel’s population and most of them vote for parties led by Arab MKs. Intentionally excluding their elected representatives is profoundly undemocratic and irreconcilable with the liberal values Yesh Atid purports to represent.
In this context, Israeli political analyst Dahlia Scheindlin cautions against reading the new alliance as signalling a meaningful shift in Israeli policies. “It is tempting to embrace unity and believe in the Bennett-Lapid merger, but, as proven time and time again, Jewish nationalism and dreams of a Greater Israel cannot be reconciled with liberal democratic values,” she warns in a recent article for the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.
I have noted back in 2021 how troubling it is that Yesh Atid holds observer status in Liberal International, and that it is routinely described as our ‘sister’ party, despite its record on Palestine. While we do not control the membership of international alliances, we do have a responsibility to ensure our political relationships reflect a genuine alignment of values in practice. That means being clear-eyed about the capacity of our partners to deliver genuine change. It also means being willing to develop new relationships, including with truly liberal forces in Israeli politics such as the Democrats, led by Yair Golan, who have consistently opposed settlement expansion, continuously called out settler violence, and are genuinely committed to a two-state solution.
* Dr. Ruvi Ziegler is Associate Professor in International Refugee Law at the University of Reading. He is an Advisory Council member of Liberal Democrats for Seekers of Sanctuary.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
How four bison brought new life to ancient woodland in Kent
Lib Dems pick Richard Kilpatrick as candidate for the Greater Manchester Mayoral election
David Evans
Matt Wardman
Peter Martin
expats
16 Comments
Ruvi’s article is a necessary reminder that with the effect on our cost of living ‘crisis’ of Netanyahu’s military adventure in Iran stealing the headlines (when they are not reporting the painfully drawn-out end of Keir Starmer’s political career), the suffering of the Palestinian people goes on.
There are clear signs that Netanyahu has fallen out of favour with Trump, after assuring him that Iran would be a repeat of Venezuela, and therefore another feather in his fellow narcissist’s cap, which was wildly wrong. The end of the Trump/Netanyahu love affair may have the effect of reigning in further outrages by the IDF, but British government interest in ending the brutal treatment of the Palestinian, Lebanese or Iranian victims of Netanyahu’s hatred remains low-key.
Ruvi makes the point that even the Israeli party once claimed to be a “sister party” to the British Lib Dems is actually more the kind of distant relative we would lock away in the attic when guests were expected. It’s a sad judgement on the state of Israeli politics when their party of the left is so palpably to the right of even Reform UK.
I totally agree with this article. The Lib Dems have good policies but send mixed messages on Palestine.
On LBC news just now “Palestine was a major issue for Birmingham residents in the elections”
On the morning of the elections we started with 12 seats and the next day we finished with 12 seats. Last in the pecking order. Mixed messaging is truly damaging and I say this as a professional marketer.
@sam ammar and the Greens went from 2 to 19 seats. I wonder why.
We should not be part of any organisation willing to have Yesh Atid as a member, whether they call themselves Liberal International or anything else.
Sorry, I don’t quite understand this article. Lapid is taking bad positions therefore we shouldn’t be associated with Yesh Atid? By all means lets not be associated with Lapid.
But, frankly, any Israeli party that supports a two state solution I have great sympathy for. I wish there were more such in Palestine; if we ever get peace it will be between these.
On UNRWA, there is a lot of work to do clearing out support for the forever war before it is a fit organisation for anyone to support.
To respond to Joe’s point:
Lapid heads his party and represent the central core of its positions: there is not a different strand that is identifiable in Yesh Atid. Lapid is Yesh Atid.
More fundamentally, they will run jointly in this year’s election with Bennett’s party that is committed *not * to have a two state solution so they cannot seriously claim to maintain that position.
The Oct 7th attacks by Gazan terrorists has killed off any prospect of a two-state solution for at least a decade (maybe two). Going on about it today is as pointless as someone suggesting, in 1946, that the Allies should put the Nazis back in charge of Germany. It is not going to happen.
The best chance of peace for the region was the Oslo Peace Accords and it was completely undermined by continuous terrorism.
I read Joe Otten’s proposition that UNRWA is complicit in the conflict with astonishment. Israel offered zero evidence for its malign accusation. The Final Report (by independent investigators) to the UN Secretary General in April 2024 regarding UNRWA’s Adherence to the Humanitarian Principle of Neutrality, offers no material evidence of wrongdoing. UNRWA carried out its own investigations too, stating in February 2024: ‘Since 2022, 66 investigations, out of 30,000 staff across UNRWA and not just in Gaza, looked at a range of alleged related to neutrality breaches, including alleged support for Hamas and other groups. Some of these investigations are still ongoing. Sixty-six cases out of 30,000 staff – not all of which have been substantiated – is just 0.22%.’
UNRWA has been the victim of a foul calumny: a gambit to strip the refugee population of its principal welfare structure, which Raphael Lemkin, originator of the Genocide Convention would have immediately recognised as having genocidal intent.
Paul R 12th May ’26 – 10:41pm…..The Oct 7th attacks by Gazan terrorists has killed off any prospect of a two-state solution for at least a decade (maybe two)….
A two state solution was dead long before Oct 7th…For years the Likud party supported Hamas (for Israel’s ‘divide and rule’ policy) to undermine any chance that the Palestine Liberation Organization might have of reaching an agreement..
Anyone believing that there will ever be a two State Solution without a sustained worldwide boycott of Israel is living in a fantasy world..
Israel’s claim to ALL of the region is not widely supported by Jews outside Israel but it is almost universally supported within Israel and by Evangelical Christians, especially in the USA.. Such support means that the required isolation of Israel, militarily, politically and commercially will not happen.. The best we can hope for is an end to the harassment and murder of Arabs in the West Bank and even that is a forlorn hope..
I am shocked and horrified by 2 statements made in the comments. Joe with his comment on Unwra, which David has already responded to very well, the other is Paul’s comment which, I think, suggests that he is comparing Hamas to Nazis and that harping back to 7th October is pointless. Israel helped to create Hamas in order to destabilize Palestinian politics and to prevent a 2-state solution. It also helped to fund Hamas and apart from the blockade and virtual imprisonment of over 2 million people by Israel as they ‘mowed the lawn’ from time to time (look it up), it is now well-documented that Israel was forewarned about the plans in advance and, whatever you believe about what actually happened that day, until Israel allows any independent investigation or even independent journalism to investigate, it is necessary to ask why will not Israel permit such things unless there is a lot to hide. Whatever actually happened on 7th October 2023, it did not happen in a vacuum. The UK, among many have recognised the State of Palestine, but still allows Israel to dictate just about everything in Gaza and the West Bank as well as it’s heinous Gazification of Southern Lebanon. Why recognise a State and do nothing about a belligerent, ethnic cleansing occupier dictating terms with impunity? As a Party, we need to speak out about such violations in a way that is heard, not whispered and hidden away from view.
Nearly five have elapsed since we first debated the significance of Yesh Atid being admitted (albeit only with ‘observer’ status) to Liberal International. I was among those who said Yesh Atid might learn something from association with truly liberal parties. I now have to admit, Ruvi, that not for the first time, I have been proved wrong.
Another of the consequences of our government (and other governments) giving Netanyahu a free hand to carry out the ethnic cleansing and probable genocide in Gaza has been that the centre of gravity has shifted in Israel, and Yesh Atid has drifted further to the right.
Members of Liberal International is a very varied group, some of which we in the UK Lib Dems would have little in common with (look at the VVD in the Netherlands or FDP in Germany). What links us is our commitment to the LI Manifesto (https://liberal-international.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/English.pdf). Not all parties live up to every part of that manifesto (just as not all of us agree with everything in our last manifesto) but we talk with each other and work together “in achieving human progress and a better world”.
That said, Yair Lapid’s Yesh Atid (and it is Lapid’s, he created it as a vehicle to oppose Netanyahu) is not the party to lead Israel towards a settlement with Palestine. Indeed it has combined (and not just for the upcoming elections) with Naftali Bennet’s proto-party into Together as a right of centre party. However, both Lapid and Bennett are far more pragmatic that Netanyhu and will at least try to improve relations with the Palestinian Authority. Hopefully the left wing party (The Democrats, a merger of Labour & Meretz led by Yair Golan) will gain enough Knesset seat to be a strong part of any Coalition and help move the next Israeli Government away from Netanyahu’s disastrous policies (both for Palestine & Israel) in Gaza, the West Bank & further afield.
Sorry if I am being dense, but can anybody give an example of anything UNRWA has said or done in Gaza in defiance of Hamas, or indeed explain how they could say or do anything (including decisions on who to employ) in defiance of Hamas without getting killed. The evidence of more or less complete infiltration has been provided by organisations such as UN Watch, and roundly ignored, but it is almost beside the point. You cannot do anything in Hamas controlled Gaza that they don’t like.
I appreciate Miranda’s comment that Hamas are kind of Israeli agents – you hear it a lot from the PA side – but what is amazing is that the people echoing this line nonetheless can’t bring themselves to unequivocally condemn Hamas. Go figure.
Joe Otten, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestinians was set up in 1948 to house and feed the 750,000 Palestinians expelled from their homes during the formation of the state of Israel. In Gaza, which has been under an economic blockade for nearly 20 years, making it what Israeli historian Ilan Pappe has called a closed prison, the need for aid has continued, never more so than during the sustained Israeli military bombardment since October 2023, which many call genocide.
Israel is the occupying power, and is responsible for the welfare of the Gazans, but was happy to let UNRWA fill that role, until the severity of the Israeli retribution for the 2023 Hamas attack was being impeded by the distribution of aid by UNRWA, which was making life in Gaza just about bearable.
You ask for examples of statements by UNRWA condemning Hamas, but most relief agencies focus on providing humanitarian aid, and avoid getting dragged into the political arena. You might perhaps be unaware that as well as its military wing, Hamas provided much of the civil administration of Gaza before the war, and UNRWA would have found that part of Hamas a useful partner in its task of alleviating the suffering of the Gazan people.
We are straying a long way from the intention of Dr Ziegler’s article, but given that readers of your comments might feel you are simply parroting Israeli propaganda, perhaps you might take the opportunity to explain your thinking.
Joe, what you forget is that Hamas was democratically elected in 2006 by the Palestinian people to govern them. Israel and the US did not like the result and that led to a coup that pushed Hamas into Gaza, where it had a civil and military wing. The blockade made it impossible for Hamas to govern in any normal way and they became more extreme. I believe that the designation of ALL of Hamas as a terrorist organisation was wrong and a death sentence to librarians, policemen, doctors, teachers and anyone who worked within the Hamas civil administration and, of course, that included many in Gaza. To say that there were people who worked for Hamas in its civil capacity is obviously true. The governing aspect of Hamas has been essential for law and order. Without them there is no law and order however nasty they may have become. UNWRA and other agencies are, as Andy says, non-political. To condemn ALL of Hamas and agencies working alongside is to say that ALL of those in Gaza are somehow guilty of what exactly? Israel allows no independent investigation into anything in Gaza, so it is impossible to fully know the truth of anything.
Israel is the occupying and, now genocidal power. Why do you believe them entirely when they produce little to no proof of many of their accusations and actions? So, I will dare to not ‘unequivocally condemn’ all that was and possibly, still is, Hamas.
Thanks Leon:
As I have recognised above, we cannot control LI’s membership and if other parties don’t live to the organisation’s manifesto it’s for the organisation to address that (I would indeed argue that the German Greens are more aligned with us than the FDP). I don’t see why we cannot signal our clear preferences through active engagement with like-minded parties like the Democrats even if we nominally remain parties to the same
Joe and others:
I don’t want to venture into the wider villain/victim debate regarding UNRWA: the paragraph in my post was more limited and nuanced in scope: as long as there is a protection need for the Palestinian refugee population, and that protection need is fulfilled pursuant to UN resolutions by a UN agency, UNRWA, then it is incumbent on all states to facilitate rather than hinder its operations. This is what the ICJ held and, with respect, it is common sense. To vote as Yesh Atid did to undermine that UNHCR agency is to breach Israel’s international obligations. As a party, we believe in international institutions and the rule of international law.