Department of Research, Studies and International News31-07-2025

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer has recently floated a so-called “pathway to peace” for Gaza and the wider Middle East. But as history has repeatedly shown, British interventions in the region have only deepened colonial wounds, paved the way for injustice, and consistently aligned with Western imperial interests, often at the expense of Arab, Iranian, and Palestinian lives.

From its early colonial ventures to its role in modern military conflicts, Britain’s history in the Middle East is a textbook example of hypocrisy. Starmer’s plan, like those of his predecessors, stands on shaky ground, undermined by a legacy of broken promises and complicity in regional destabilization.

1917 Balfour Declaration: Laying the groundwork for occupation

One of Britain’s most infamous historical interventions in Palestine was the 1917 Balfour Declaration, in which then-Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour expressed support for establishing a “national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, while vaguely assuring that the rights of the native non-Jewish communities would not be violated.

That promise was never honored. Instead, it legitimized settler colonialism and laid the foundations for the displacement and suffering of the Palestinian people. When the British mandate ended in 1948, the consequences of this declaration became evident in the Nakba, or “catastrophe,” during which hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forcibly expelled from their homeland. British recognition of the Zionist regime in the aftermath of the first Arab-Israeli war further cemented its betrayal of the Palestinian cause.

Suez Crisis of 1956: Britain’s imperialist reflexes

In 1956, Britain again showed its true colors during the Suez Crisis. When Egypt’s nationalist leader Gamal Abdel Nasser moved to nationalize the Suez Canal, an assertion of sovereign control over Egyptian territory, Britain colluded with France and the Zionist regime to launch a military assault under the guise of separating warring parties.

While Israeli forces succeeded in occupying the Sinai Peninsula and decimating Egyptian divisions, Britain and France suffered global embarrassment. Rather than learning from this imperial blunder, Britain’s arms exports to the Zionist entity increased in the decades that followed, revealing its unwavering support for Tel Aviv as a bulwark against Arab independence movements.

UNSC Resolution 242: Vague promises, no justice

Following the 1967 Six-Day War, when Israeli forces occupied Gaza, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights, Britain played a central role in drafting United Nations Security Council Resolution 242. Ostensibly about “land for peace,” the resolution was deliberately vague and failed to explicitly acknowledge Palestinian national rights.

By reducing the Palestinian issue to a “refugee problem,” the resolution denied the indigenous people their status as a nation entitled to sovereignty and justice. It laid the groundwork for decades of fruitless negotiations that ignored the root causes of the conflict: occupation, colonization, and apartheid policies.

Venice Declaration of 1980: A toothless gesture

While the U.S. solidified its dominance over the so-called “peace process” through the Camp David Accords in 1978, Europe, led in part by Britain, attempted to carve out a role through the Venice Declaration in 1980. This declaration finally acknowledged Palestinians’ right to self-determination and even called for the inclusion of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in future talks.

However, the statement was too little, too late. It had no enforcement mechanisms and no political weight. The PLO’s inclusion, at a time when it was still being demonized by the West, sparked backlash from Washington, which continued to support Israeli aggression unconditionally. British leaders like Thatcher and Major, while rhetorically aligned with Europe’s consensus, avoided any bold moves to challenge U.S.-Israeli hegemony.

Post-9/11 Era and Blair’s failures

The Second Intifada (2000–2005) erupted shortly after the collapse of yet another U.S.-brokered Camp David summit. In response, then-Prime Minister Tony Blair aligned closely with U.S. President George W. Bush during the so-called “War on Terror,” which conflated Palestinian resistance with terrorism and further criminalized those struggling under occupation.

Blair’s 2003 “roadmap” promised a two-state solution by 2005, a promise that never materialized. His later role as Quartet envoy only reinforced Palestinian skepticism. His economic-focused approach ignored political realities, and his decision to eulogize former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, a figure deeply implicated in war crimes, confirmed perceptions of his bias.

Britain’s modern-day paralysis

Since Blair, successive UK governments, from Gordon Brown to Rishi Sunak, have paid lip service to the idea of a two-state solution, while failing to take any concrete action. They have condemned neither settlement expansion nor the repeated atrocities committed by Israeli forces in Gaza and the West Bank. Most tellingly, they have done little to oppose the U.S. strategy of shielding Israel from accountability at the international level.

A path to nowhere

Starmer’s “pathway to peace” comes across as an empty slogan, a hollow echo of decades of British duplicity. History shows that UK policies in the Middle East have consistently prioritized imperial and Zionist interests over justice, sovereignty, and peace for the Palestinian people.

If peace is ever to be realized, it will not come from colonial powers like Britain. It must come through the steadfast resistance of the oppressed, the rise of multipolar cooperation led by nations like China, Russia, and Iran, and the global rejection of Western double standards that have enabled apartheid and occupation for over seven decades.