An old proverb says: “We let him ride behind us on the donkey, and he reached his hand into the saddlebag.” From a British perspective, not ours, the saying captures something of the relationship now unfolding between Britain and Israel.
We do not accept Britain’s right to have promised Palestine to the Jews in the first place, nor the legitimacy of granting land it did not own to anyone other than its people. Nor do we regard the Balfour Declaration as a legitimate foundation for any right, or as a British favour that can be invoked against the Palestinians.
Yet when the situation is viewed through London’s own eyes, the contradiction becomes striking.
Britain issued the Balfour Declaration in 1917, then used its influence and power during the Mandate period to create conditions that helped the Zionist project grow and consolidate itself. Today, it finds itself facing an Israel that is no longer content with what it acquired and entrenched through force and Western support, but is reaching for still more land.
It is as though Britain is now saying to Israel: “We let him ride behind us on the donkey, and he reached his hand into the saddlebag.”
Britain Is Not Turning Against Israel
But this should not be misread.
Britain has not suddenly become Israel’s enemy. It has not transformed itself into a champion of the Palestinians, nor has it awakened after more than a century determined to correct a historic injustice and restore rights to their owners.
The disagreement is more precise than that.
Britain’s dispute with Israel is not about Israel’s existence, but about the limits of its expansion. It is not a rejection of the project that Britain itself helped enable, but an objection to that project pushing beyond the boundaries the West wants to preserve for it.
Put more plainly, Britain is not telling Israel: return what you took.
It is telling Israel: you have taken enough. Do not take more and destabilise the environment around both you and us.
Settlement Expansion Becomes the Point of Friction
This helps explain Britain’s recent positions on Israeli settlements.
London has spoken about banning trade with settlements, warned that it will not stand by while the two-state solution is destroyed, and criticised illegal settlement expansion in the occupied West Bank.
The dispute has escalated to the point that Israel informed the British consulate in East Jerusalem that its diplomats would lose their accreditation within 30 days.
The historical irony is difficult to miss.
The state that issued the Balfour Declaration more than a century ago now faces the anger of the state whose project it helped empower, because Britain is attempting to prevent it from swallowing still more Palestinian land.
A Dispute Palestinians Can Exploit, But Not Misread
This confrontation can be viewed from two directions.
On one hand, it is in the Palestinian interest for disagreements between Israel and its allies to widen whenever Israel pushes further with settlement expansion and annexation. Any political or economic pressure capable of restraining settlement growth and protecting what remains of Palestinian land should not be dismissed.
Every new settlement means less Palestinian land. Every new settler road further fragments the West Bank. Every day that this expansion continues makes the establishment of a Palestinian state more difficult.
There is therefore no contradiction in benefiting from this dispute and seeing it as an opportunity to restrain Israel and curb its expansion.
But on the other hand, it would be a mistake to ignore what may lie behind the Western position.
Opposing a new act of dispossession does not necessarily mean rejecting the earlier one. Preventing Israel from seizing more land may ultimately serve as a way of consolidating what it already took and transforming the outcome of wars, force and occupation into a permanent reality that the West has no intention of revisiting.
That is where the danger lies.
Gaza Exposes the Limits of Britain’s Objection
The contradiction becomes even sharper when Gaza is considered.
Britain’s pressure did not match the scale of the killing, destruction and displacement witnessed in Gaza. Yet London is now raising its voice much more forcefully as settlement expansion in the West Bank threatens the viability of the two-state solution.
It is as though the Western problem was not primarily the amount of land Israel had taken or the destruction it had inflicted, but the possibility that Israel’s appetite might eventually consume the political formula the West is trying to preserve.
The West wants Israel strong, secure and stable, but it does not want an Israel without limits.
It wants to preserve the Israel it recognises and supports while maintaining enough Palestinian territory to continue speaking about a Palestinian state and a two-state solution.
Is the Pressure Also About Netanyahu?
The timing of this escalation cannot be separated from Israel’s approaching elections, in which Benjamin Netanyahu faces a difficult political battle.
This raises another question: does the West merely want to restrain settlement expansion, or does it also want to restrain Netanyahu and the political current that has taken Israel beyond the ceiling preferred by its allies?
There is no evidence that the West is waging a campaign to remove Netanyahu. But it is difficult to ignore the potential political impact of these pressures at this particular moment.
Perhaps what the West wants is a different Israel, not a different Palestine. Perhaps it wants a government more disciplined in observing the limits that Western powers envision for the Israeli project.
For that reason, Palestinians can benefit from divisions among Israel and its allies whenever those divisions restrain the occupation. But such pressure should not be described as a victory for the Palestinian cause while the future of Israel, rather than the restoration of Palestinian rights, remains the central concern.
Britain Is Fighting for Its Political Formula
Britain is not fighting the Palestinian battle.
The Palestinian struggle is rooted in the rights of a people whose land was taken, whose population was displaced and who have paid an enormous price over decades.
Britain’s struggle today is different. Its concern is preventing Israel from destroying the political formula the West wants to preserve.
That distinction matters.
Yes, Britain’s current position may serve Palestinian interests. Pressure could slow settlement expansion or help restrain it, and there is no reason to reject such pressure merely because it comes from Britain.
The mistake would be to interpret it as a historic reversal in British policy or as a triumph for Palestinian rights.
The Britain of yesterday helped empower the Zionist project. The Britain of today is trying to regulate its expansion.
Between yesterday and today, London has still not reached the question that truly matters to Palestinians.
It is not telling Israel: return what you took to its owners.
It is still saying: keep what you have taken, but do not reach into the saddlebag.
