In the past month, the United Kingdom has taken two notable diplomatic steps on Palestine. First, on 1 May, 2025, British lawyers in The Hague made a legal submission to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that echoed previous submissions and statements and strongly defended international humanitarian law in Gaza. They argued that Israel, as the occupying power, is “bound by the Geneva Conventions” to protect Palestinian civilians and “must facilitate full, rapid, safe and unhindered humanitarian provision to the population of Gaza… and must ensure access to medical care” in line with international law.
Shortly before, on 28 April, 2025, the UK Government signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Palestinian Authority (PA) that prioritises humanitarian support, democratic renewal and a renewed commitment to a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders. In this MoU, the UK explicitly “underline[s] [its] resolute commitment to the two-state solution” and “affirms the inalienable right of the Palestinian people of self-determination, including to an independent state.” For the first time in years, the UK is rhetorically aligning itself with core principles of international law, humanitarian access, Palestinian self-determination and support for Palestinian governance. The Britain-Palestine Project (BPP) welcomes this principled tone. However, good intentions and positive statements are not enough. The path to a better future lies in consistent application of the Rule of Law, not selective rhetoric or passive diplomacy. The UK’s words must now be matched by credible action. Below, we analyse how the positions espoused in the ICJ submission, and the MoU could be the basis for a shift in the actual policy of the UK policy – and map out the concrete steps Britain should take in six key action areas to turn this rhetoric into reality.
Ceasefire and Humanitarian Access
Both the ICJ filing and the new MoU underscore the imperative of protecting civilians and ensuring humanitarian access. At the ICJ, the UK emphasised that an occupier’s duty to allow relief is “unconditional” – Israel “may not withhold consent to offers to conduct humanitarian relief operations that are exclusively humanitarian and impartial in nature.” In practical terms, Britain made clear that life-saving aid to Gaza cannot be lawfully blocked or delayed. It also affirmed UN agencies like UNRWA as “impartial humanitarian” actors, rejecting any attempt to discredit them. This legal stance sends a message that there is no excuse for choking off food, water, medicine, and electricity to Gaza’s 2m residents. The MoU echoes this humanitarian imperative: the UK commits to “supporting humanitarian and developmental priorities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory across ambitious programmes.” Indeed, during the MoU’s signing, British and Palestinian officials jointly “agreed on the urgent need for a return to a ceasefire in Gaza with the release of hostages and unblocking of aid,” stressing that “aid workers need protection” as well. In short, the UK recognises that protecting civilians and allowing unhindered relief is paramount – and that an immediate ceasefire is essential to both goals.
To translate these principles into policy, Britain must move from words to deeds. The BPP calls on the UK to lead an international push for an immediate, unconditional ceasefire and full humanitarian access in Gaza and the immediate release of all Israel hostages held by Hamas Britain should urgently convene a coalition of like-minded states to demand that the fighting stop and to establish “secure humanitarian corridors into Gaza,” with international monitors to guarantee the delivery of aid and the safety of civilians. Such monitors, mandated by the UN, could be deployed at border entry points to ensure aid flows unimpeded. Given the grave situation, London must be prepared to back up its demands with consequences if obstruction continues. For example, if Israel were to wilfully defy these basic obligations, the UK should work with partners at the UN to consider enforcement actions – even suspending Israel’s General Assembly privileges, as was done against apartheid South Africa, should violations persist.
Recognition of the State of Palestine
A second major theme is the UK’s renewed acknowledgment of the Palestinian right to self-determination and the two-state solution. The April 2025 MoU pointedly “underline[s]… [the participants’] resolute commitment to the two-state solution based on 1967 lines” and “emphasise[s] the importance of recognition as a contribution to the two-state solution.” For the first time, the UK also formally “affirms the inalienable right of the Palestinian people of self-determination, including to an independent state.” This language edges the UK closer than ever to recognising Palestinian statehood. It reflects a shift in rhetoric: Britain is now openly validating the principle that Palestinians are entitled to their own state alongside Israel. Logically, such a stance demands an equally bold policy move – one that 147 other nations have already made and that France has indicated it may soon also do.
Britain should immediately extend formal diplomatic recognition to the State of Palestine, on the same basis that it recognises Israel – the 1967 lines with East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital. This step would tangibly affirm Palestinian self-determination and put both parties on more equal footing. Crucially, recognition is not a gift to one side or a prejudgment of final borders; it is an acknowledgment of the de facto recognition the UK Government already gives the government of Palestine the status of a state. It would create a better framework for negotiations. It would also align UK policy with international law – notably with the July 2024 ICJ Advisory Opinion that found Israel’s prolonged occupation illegal and urged states not to aid or legitimise that unlawful situation. In the MoU, Britain has effectively admitted that Palestinian statehood is integral to peace; now it must act on that admission. Recognising Palestine is a necessary litmus test of the UK’s commitment to the two-state principle it espouses. Diplomatic words mean little if Britain is unwilling to take this basic step toward parity of esteem.
Accountability and International Law Enforcement
Another pillar of the UK’s stated policy is the primacy of international law and the need to hold violators accountable. Both the ICJ submission and the MoU frame international legal obligations as paramount. In The Hague, the UK stressed that abiding by the Geneva Conventions is not optional, even amid conflict: one side’s violations (e.g. Hamas’s crimes) do not absolve the other from its duty to obey the law.
British representatives stated that no claims of military necessity justify practices like collective punishment or blocking relief – a clear reaffirmation that those who breach international humanitarian law must answer for it. The MoU explicitly reinforces “commitment to upholding the rules-based international system” and “underscores the importance of implementing all United Nations Security Council Resolutions pertaining to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” In other words, the UK and PA agreed that decades of UN resolutions and international law must be respected and enforced. This includes resolutions like UNSC 2334 (which declares Israeli settlements have no legal validity and calls on states to differentiate in their dealings with occupied territory). Such rhetoric implies a promise of accountability: that the UK will oppose and help remedy violations of international law rather than ignore them. To be credible, this promise now requires concrete action.
To uphold international law and end impunity, the UK should:
- Support and cooperate with war crimes investigations. This means fully backing the International Criminal Court’s ongoing investigation into alleged war crimes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and honouring any resulting warrants or rulings. The UK’s commitment to a rules-based order rings hollow if it shrinks from international justice when politically inconvenient. Upholding the law impartially – whether abuses are by Israeli forces or Palestinian actors – is essential for accountability.
- End complicity in illegal occupation practices. Britain must ensure it is not aiding Israel’s breaches of international law. In practice, this entails banning trade with and investment in illegal settlements, and enforcing differentiation between sovereign Israel and the occupied territory in all economic and diplomatic dealings. The BPP urges the UK to implement the guidance of the ICJ’s 2024 Advisory Opinion by prohibiting trade in goods produced in Israeli settlements, which violate the Fourth Geneva Convention. Likewise, any UK entities involved in supporting settlement expansion or annexation efforts should face sanctions in line with ICJ Advisory Opinion. The UK should also press Israel to reverse policies – like home demolitions or land grabs – that entrench occupation, citing the clear “importance of implementing all UN Security Council resolutions” that it affirmed in the MoU.
- Insist on compliance with humanitarian and war crimes law. The UK must use its influence to ensure that Israel abides by fundamental legal obligations in Gaza and the West Bank. This includes demanding Israel comply with the ICJ’s provisional measures (issued in late 2024 in the context of genocide prevention) to allow unimpeded relief and refrain from any actions that could constitute atrocity crimes. Britain should make clear that deliberate attacks on civilians, collective punishment or de facto annexation will carry consequences – such as sanctions or international censure – in line with the UK’s own legal analysis. By the same token, the UK should support efforts to hold all perpetrators accountable, including militant groups committing terrorism.
In sum, if the UK believes in a “rules-based international system,” it must be willing to pursue justice for serious violations. That means backing international legal mechanisms and taking uncomfortable but necessary steps (like economic measures against settlement activity or military aid suspensions) to enforce the law. Rhetoric about accountability must be backed by willingness to impose accountability. Otherwise, British appeals to law will be dismissed as empty diplomacy.
Suspension of Arms Sales and Military Cooperation
Perhaps the most immediate test of the UK’s principles is its policy on arms exports to Israel. Even as it speaks of protecting civilians, Britain continues business-as-usual in defence cooperation – a stance increasingly at odds with its rhetoric and with allies’ actions. The BPP emphasises that the UK must immediately suspend all arms transfers, military cooperation and intelligence-sharing with Israel to avoid complicity in war crimes and unlawful attacks; it should also investigate and prosecute cases of UK citizens suspected of involvement in war crimes in Gaza whilst serving in the IDF. In its ICJ testimony, the UK effectively acknowledged that certain Israeli military actions (those impeding humanitarian relief or targeting civilians) are illegal; continuing to supply weapons that could facilitate such actions would make the UK partially responsible for the consequences. Indeed, several of Britain’s key allies have already taken this step. Canada, the Netherlands, Japan, Spain, Belgium and Italy have all announced they are halting arms exports to Israel in light of the Gaza conflict.
Britain should therefore impose an immediate moratorium on weapons sales and military technology transfers to Israel. This pause should remain in effect until the violence against civilians ceases and robust mechanisms are in place to ensure that UK-origin equipment cannot be used in abuses. Such a policy would demonstrate consistency with Britain’s own stated concern for humanitarian law. There can be no “business as usual” during mass atrocities. By joining the growing international consensus to stop arms flows when war crimes are occurring, the UK will put real weight behind its calls for restraint. Aligning its actions with its words is not only a moral necessity but a strategic imperative to preserve Britain’s global credibility.
Palestinian Governance and Transitional Arrangements in Gaza
The UK’s new diplomatic posture also places a spotlight on Palestinian governance, particularly the role of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza. The April 2025 MoU is Britain’s political support for the PA as the “only legitimate governing entity in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in Gaza.” The MoU asserts unequivocally that the West Bank (including East Jerusalem) and Gaza “must be reunified under [the PA’s] sole authority,” and that the PA “must have the central role in the next phase in Gaza on governance, security and early recovery.” During the MoU signing, UK officials stated there can be “no role for Hamas in the future of Gaza,” and pledged substantial financial aid (£101 million) and technical support to bolster PA institutions. Implicit in the UK’s ICJ arguments was the notion that a lasting resolution requires empowered, unified Palestinian governance – the UK urged, for instance, that Israel release frozen PA tax revenues, recognising that undermining the PA contradicts Israel’s obligations under the Oslo framework. Now through the MoU, Britain is committing diplomatically to help make that unified governance a reality.
Given this stance, the UK must actively support a transitional arrangement that restores the PA’s authority in Gaza as part of any post-conflict scenario. Rhetorically backing the PA is not enough; Britain should work with international and regional partners on a plan to reinstate legitimate Palestinian administration in Gaza. This means supporting the establishment of a transitional technocratic government in Gaza, ideally led by non-partisan professionals under PA auspices, once a ceasefire is in place. Such an interim administration would need to be buttressed by an international security presence to maintain stability and public safety. Critically, Israel must fully withdraw its military from Gaza in this process to allow the PA (and any international mission) to function – a point the UK should insist upon in all relevant discussions. In parallel, Britain should intensify efforts to reunify Gaza and the West Bank under one political umbrella. The MoU’s language about reunification and “democratic renewal” through elections is especially noteworthy. The UK should press for and help facilitate Palestinian elections in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem at the earliest feasible opportunity. This includes urging Israel to allow voting in East Jerusalem and encouraging all Palestinian factions to participate and respect results. Britain must commit to respecting the outcome of Palestinian democratic choice without reservation, so long as those elected pursue peaceful means and respect international law.
By investing in a viable, unified Palestinian governing partner, the UK would be following through on its promises. Concretely, this could involve directing the new £101m assistance toward strengthening the PA’s capacity in Gaza – rebuilding administrative systems, paying civil servants, restoring services – so that Gazans see immediate benefits of PA governance. Technical assistance should focus on the reforms identified in the PA’s own National Programme for Development and Reform (which the MoU notes the UK “fully supports”), including anti-corruption measures and security sector reform to earn public confidence. All of these steps will help ensure that when the guns fall silent, Gaza is not left in a governance vacuum. Instead, it will have the internationally recognised Palestinian Authority ready to assume responsibility, with the UK and others providing the necessary support. This is how the UK can turn its pro-PA rhetoric into reality – by midwifing a post-conflict transition in Gaza that empowers legitimate Palestinian institutions.
Finally, Britain’s recent moves invite a broader reorientation – a reset of UK foreign policy priorities toward proactive leadership for peace, rights and international law. The ICJ submission and the MoU, taken together, could drive a more assertive, principle-driven UK posture. To capitalise on this, the UK must reframe how it engages on the world stage regarding Israel-Palestine. Simply improving public rhetoric will not regain Britain’s respect globally; only meaningful action and consistency will. It is time for the UK to leverage its diplomatic clout at the UN and in multilateral forums, to push for the outcomes it now claims to support.
This means using Britain’s voice and vote in every relevant arena to champion the rule of law and equal rights. In the UN Security Council and General Assembly, the UK should unapologetically advocate resolutions and decisions that implement the very principles it signed onto in the MoU (for example, resolutions demanding a ceasefire, protection of civilians and respect for previous UN decisions). Notably, late last year Britain showed it can diverge from Washington’s line when principle dictates – voting in the UNSC and General Assembly for an immediate Gaza ceasefire despite U.S. opposition. The UK should be prepared to convene urgent Security Council sessions or emergency UNGA meetings when crises erupt, to ensure the world responds to violations.
In addition, the UK should spearhead and support international diplomatic initiatives aimed at a just resolution. Rather than trying to impose solutions, Britain ought to use its convening power and historical responsibilities to facilitate regionally-led peace efforts. A positive model was the Arab League’s Cairo Summit of March 2025, which produced a regional plan for Gaza’s reconstruction, guarantees against forced displacement of Palestinians, and a proposal for an international protection force.
The UK should fully endorse these outcomes and offer political and material support to implement them. Likewise, Britain should actively engage with the forthcoming New York international conference (June 2025) co-hosted by France and Saudi Arabia, which aims to chart a serious roadmap toward a two-state solution grounded in international law. The UK’s participation would lend weight to such conferences and signal that it is resetting its priorities toward ending this conflict.
Beyond these, Britain could initiate a new “London process” or contact group to regularly coordinate like-minded states on upholding commitments (for example, ensuring humanitarian access or following up on war crimes inquiries). All these diplomatic efforts should be underpinned by a clear message: the UK’s foreign policy will henceforth prioritize equal rights, justice, and mutual security for both Israelis and Palestinians, rather than accepting any calculus that one people’s rights can be sacrificed for the other’s security.
The UK’s recent actions – a robust legal stand at the ICJ and a forward-leaning strategic MoU with the Palestinian Authority – are encouraging signs of principled leadership. They have set out, on paper, a coherent framework anchored in international law, humanitarian duty and support for Palestinian self-determination. The challenge now is turning this framework into reality. Fine words must be followed by fine deeds.
Will Britain’s practice align with its promise? The six action areas above outline how it can – by demanding ceasefires and humanitarian corridors, recognising Palestine, enforcing international law, halting arms that feed abuses, empowering Palestinian governance and leading boldly on the world stage.