When I welcomed a delegation of British Liberal Democrats to Jerusalem and Ramallah last week, led by Gavin Stollar OBE and the Party’s Foreign Affairs lead, Calum Miller MP, I was reminded that politics, at its best, is not a transaction but a relationship. It is built on trust, curiosity and, above all, friendship.
In a region where suspicion is often the default setting, the simple act of sitting together – listening, disagreeing respectfully, and breaking bread – can itself feel radical. Our conversations were frank. They were searching. They were, at moments, uncomfortable. And they were deeply encouraging.
I write this for Lib Dem Voice because what I encountered was not a party looking for slogans, but a movement seeking understanding. The delegation came not to lecture, nor to posture for headlines, but to ask difficult questions: What do Palestinians owe to peace? What political renewal is possible? Where does responsibility truly lie? And who, among Palestinian actors, is capable of delivering a future compatible with liberal democratic values?
These are not abstract matters. They are existential.
For too long, Palestinian politics has been trapped between two failed paradigms: the militancy of Hamas and the stagnation and corruption associated with Mahmoud Abbas. One cloaks itself in the language of “resistance” while devastating its own people. The other speaks the vocabulary of statehood while hollowing out institutions from within. Neither offers the moral or practical foundation required to push a deal with Israel.
If we are honest – and liberals must always begin with honesty – Palestinians carry obligations of our own.
We have an obligation to build institutions that are transparent and accountable. No democratic partner in Britain, or elsewhere can invest political capital in a Palestinian leadership that cannot convincingly account for public funds, uphold the rule of law, or guarantee the independence of its judiciary.
We have an obligation to renounce violence wherever it exists not merely tactically but strategically and morally. Violence corrodes the soul of a society. It distorts priorities. It empowers extremists on both sides. Every rocket launched by Hamas strengthens the Israeli far right. Every attack on civilians undermines the very claim to dignity that Palestinians seek to assert.
We have an obligation to prepare our own public for compromise. Peace will not look like total victory for either people. It will involve painful concessions. That requires political leadership willing to tell hard truths: that neither Israel nor Palestinians are going away; that mutual recognition is not betrayal; that coexistence is not capitulation.
And we have an obligation to end the culture of incitement and grievance that imprisons young minds. A generation raised only on narratives of victimhood cannot easily become a generation of builders.
These themes animated my discussions with Gavin, Calum, Tim (Farron MP), Victoria (Collins MP), Lord Palmer, Baroness Ludford and their colleagues. They asked whether a liberal Palestinian force truly exists. My answer was unequivocal: it must – and it does.
The movement I am helping to build seeks to anchor Palestinian politics in civic nationalism rather than religious extremism or factional patronage. We believe in non-violence. We believe in institutional reform. We believe in women’s leadership and youth empowerment. We believe that economic opportunity and political freedom reinforce one another.
This is not naïveté. It is strategy.
Hamas offers Palestinians perpetual war and international isolation. Its model is not compatible with the values of liberal democracy, nor with the requirements of peaceful state-building. Its entanglement with regional actors who do not share our aspiration for coexistence places Palestinian lives at the mercy of geopolitical games.
Abbas, meanwhile, trapped Fatah in its own history. Fatah once carried the banner of national liberation. But decades of entrenchment in power without meaningful electoral renewal have eroded its legitimacy. Patronage networks and bureaucratic sclerosis have alienated the very youth whose energy is indispensable for national renewal.
The result is a vacuum – a dangerous vacuum – into which despair seeps.
This is where liberal internationalism matters. The delegation’s visit reminded me that the Palestinian question is not solely about borders or security arrangements; it is about political culture. The values that animate the UK Liberal Democrats – pluralism, human rights, devolution of power, social justice – are precisely those that can help transform Palestinian governance from the inside.
Partnership is not about endorsement. It is about exchange. I was struck by the seriousness with which our British friends approached the idea that Palestinian reform is not a precondition to be demanded from afar but a project to be accompanied. They challenged us. They pressed us on feasibility. They asked how we would withstand intimidation from entrenched interests. These were the right questions.
For peace to become credible, Palestinians must demonstrate that we can control armed actors within our own society. A state cannot coexist peacefully with its neighbour if it cannot monopolise the legitimate use of force. That principle is foundational to any functioning polity.
Likewise, we must ensure that our educational curricula, media discourse and political rhetoric align with a future-oriented vision. Preparing our people for statehood means cultivating responsibility, not resentment.
None of this absolves Israel of its own responsibilities. Settlement expansion, restrictions on movement, and the absence of a political horizon feed cynicism and empower radicals. But acknowledging Israeli obligations does not negate our own.
The delegation understood this duality. They recognised that solidarity with Palestinian rights must go hand in hand with support for Palestinian reform. They appreciated that criticism of Israeli policy does not equate to indulgence of Palestinian misgovernance.
As liberals, we share a belief in agency. Palestinians are not passive victims of history. We are political actors capable of choice. We can choose the path of permanent confrontation, or we can choose the arduous road of institution-building and compromise.
My conviction is that a reformed, liberal Palestinian party – one that could, in time, stand as a credible partner within Liberal International – offers a third way. A way that rejects both Islamist authoritarianism and secular corruption. A way that seeks legitimacy through elections, transparency and service delivery rather than through arms or patronage.
The friendships forged during this visit give me hope that this vision is not isolated. International liberal networks can provide mentorship, training, and political cover for reformers who face hostility at home. They can amplify voices that argue for coexistence without surrendering national aspirations.
Peace will not be made by slogans shouted across barricades. It will be built by patient, disciplined political work: drafting laws, training civil servants, empowering municipalities, ensuring women sit at decision-making tables, and persuading sceptical citizens that compromise is not betrayal.
When I think back on our conversations – spirited, respectful, grounded in shared values – I am reminded that friendship itself is a political act. It signals faith in the possibility of change.
The Palestinian national movement stands at a crossroads. The path of Hamas leads to devastation. The path of Fatah, as currently constituted, leads to stagnation. There must be another way.
With partners such as the UK Liberal Democrats – embodied in leaders like Gavin Stollar and Calum Miller – who are willing to engage honestly and critically, I believe we can begin to carve that path.
The obligations on Palestinians are clear: reform, responsibility, and readiness for compromise. Meeting those obligations is not capitulation. It is the prerequisite for dignity, sovereignty and lasting peace with Israel.
And it is a task we must undertake not tomorrow, but now.
* Samer Sinijlawi is a Palestinian political activist, leading a Palestinian process of reforms and liberal democracy and advocating for Palestinian-Israeli dialogue and coexistence.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
I am liberal, woke and proud of it. We should all accept such descriptions with pride
The Joy of Six 1539
When the GIs came to Swansea
What's he got?
Latest voting intention and leadership ratings opinion polls
Richard Dickson
Paul Reynolds
Anne Williams
Jana
Peter Martin
13 Comments
How do you compromise with a foe who wants to prevent your people ever achieving their own viable, independent state, and which is continually seizing Palestinian land and then building settlements for Israelis on seized land?
@Joan Summers
That is what Samer’s brilliant article details. It is important to listen to people with skin in the game and learn from them. Bravo, Samer, fantastic piece.
@Jack Meredith
Sorry, Jack, but is there any reason why Palestinians should be expected to be more willing to compromise and let Israelis take their land, such as on the West Bank, than Ukrainians should be willing to let Russians take their land, such as in the Donbas? It smacks of double standards that we urge Palestinians to opt for non-violence and compromise while we actively arm Ukrainians to continue to fight and urge them not to compromise on Russia’s territorial demands.
@Joan Summers
As I said, Samer is speaking from a position that you and I do not – actually being involved on the ground, day-to-day. I’d rather take his view on the matter, given that he is actually there, than anyone commenting based on good intentions.
I met Samer last year in London ay a Minds of Peace conference. He is very much a realist, as all good liberals should be and while he may not like the fact that Israel exists, he know that there will be no sovereign, free Palestine without accepting Israel also needs security.
The current Israeli Government of Zealots & Fascists will probably be defeated in the upcoming Israeli Elections and, hopefully, be replaced by a more pragmatic Government that will be willing to work with Palestinians like Samer in building a new reality between the Sea & the River.
There should also be elections in Palestine & I hope Samer does well and can lead his people to a real peace and rebuild his country.
Joan, the two state solution is the compromise needed on the Palestinian side. Hamas have never conceded that Israel should continue to exist, and while the PA have contemplated making peace with Israel they have never agreed it, nor made any counter offer consistent with Israel’s survival.
I agree Israel, currently, is no longer interested in the two state solution; that too needs to change. But peace begets peace just as war begets war, as always.
@Joe Otten
I completely agree. It’s quite clear Netanyahu isn’t interested in a two-state solution, but thankfully, the anti-Netanyahu coalition is growing, and they DO want peace, so as you say: peace begets peace just as war begets war, as always.
“but thankfully, the anti-Netanyahu coalition is growing….”
Wishful thinking? The best you can say is that the evidence is mixed. There are those in Israel who might be anti-Netanyahu for the wrong reasons. They want an even tougher policy towards the Palestinians!
It’s not easy to make sense of the workings of internal Israeli politics
Would someone like to have a try?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2026_Israeli_legislative_election
I agree; “The path of Hamas leads to devastation. The path of Fatah, as currently constituted, leads to stagnation.”
But why is there zero mention of Netanyahu? I did a word search, he is not mentioned once. Nor is there any description of the conditions of the Palestinians in Gaza, West Bank or East Jerusalem. Why not?
A political party representing liberal Palestinians might reasonably propose that everyone within the current borders of Israel, including the occupied territories, should have equal human and political rights. This is after all Liberalism 101. So what about this political party? What about the right to return? Should Jews and Palestinians have equal rights to return without any discrimination based on religion?
How long has this party been around? How many members does it have? Who – if anyone – funds it? Where are it’s supporters?
I would like to know because it is hard to believe that after all that has been done by the Israeli government to the Palestinian people, particularly in recent years but also since the formation of Israel in 1948, that this party represents anything more than a tiny number of people.
There is nothing wrong with what the article says, it is what it does * not * say that concerns me.
Geoffrey, you make the ‘right to return’ sound like a neutral demand. How does Israel survive if 6 million Palestinians immigrate? Where are the homes and jobs for them? Will they suddenly become loyal citizens including those who are part of murderous terror groups today, or will enough of them seek to press home the advantage return has given them to some sort of final victory over the Jews?
Do the descendants of the 800,000 Jews who fled or were expelled from the rest of the Middle East and North Africa have a right to return? And would they enjoy good human rights in those countries? Unpicking the formation of Israel is not a neutral act. And it would be like unpicking the partition of India (wherein another minority in a region sought self-governance, and the process by which it happened was terrible)
I want to see peace between Israel and Palestine. To get there many things need to happen, one of which is that we all need to stop supporting any Palestinian demands which insinuate the non-existence of Israel.
A most uplifting article, it is good to hear of voices within Palestinian politics other than Hamas and Fatah. For those who share my own ignorance, and maybe in part answer to Geoffrey’s questions, I found this article from the Times of Israel quite helpful – https://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-activist-wants-both-sides-to-see-the-conflict-through-each-others-eyes/
The much misused phrase, “From the river to the sea” has been a Likud (Netanyahu) slogan since it’s foundation in 1973..
Israel doesn’t want ‘Peace’ it wants ‘Peace on it’s terms’ and that includes the complete annexation of the West Bank; a process that is now unstoppable..
It doesn’t matter what shade of government replaces Likud the Palestinian inhabitants of those west bank villages, farms and homes violently displaced will never be allowed to reclaim them..
Israel has become a ‘rogue state’ and any and countries involved all future dealings with it should recognise and accept that fact..
Whether we like it or not, Palestinians have taken to the polls in both Gaza and the West Bank and voted overwhelmingly for Fatah in the elections held a month ago.
By all means, set up a political party, we see this happening in the UK, I personally welcome it very much. However, the Lib Dems must respect the will of the Palestinians by speaking to those who have been democratically elected. Thats how we do things in this country. The Palestinians voted, we respect it. Israel occupies Palestine we understand it and oppose occupation.
We condemn violence on any side but we hope we have more leverage over an ally like Israel, than a group which is proscribed and forbidden from this country. However, I fear that the scenes from the Fortilla activists- shows us we have zero leverage over Israel and the only way is sanctions, which is what we have done to Russia.
A good article but little representation from the Palestinian side. Lacks balance and doesn’t represent the full depth of the suffering that my Palestinian family is enduring day in and day out. It also doesn’t address the right of return and the Palestinians living in the diaspora – having no right to a Palestinian passport or identity as per Israeli rule.
It is to be noted that Mr Sinjilawi did not engage with the Palestine caucus in the Lib Dems – only with the Israeli side.