British diplomacy defends Israel and legitimises annexation
Boris Johnson, Mayor of London, at the Western Wall, Jerusalem, 11 November 2015
Ramona Wadi writes in Middle East Monitor:
British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s op-ed for YNet news reflects all that is wrong with speaking out against annexation “as Israel’s friend”. Israel has diplomatic allegiances and acquaintances; “friendship” is the euphemism used to make colonialism and collaboration endearing to the undiscerning.
It is no surprise that Johnson’s op-ed drew upon privileged personal experiences as opposed to British colonial involvement in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration of November 1917 was depicted in full to complement Johnson’s ramblings, a blatant assertion that reminds Britain of the role it played in facilitating the Zionist colonisation of Palestine. Indeed, Johnson pointed out that he is “immensely proud of the UK’s contribution to the birth of Israel with the 1917 Balfour Declaration.”
It is therefore hypocritical for the British PM to state that the UK will not recognise any changes to the 1967 borders, as if having pride in the Balfour Declaration will influences British-Israeli diplomacy. Like the rest of the international community, Britain will not do anything other than condemn the formalisation of historical colonial land theft. In this regard, the UN has set a prime example in passing off rhetorical condemnations as adequate political action. There is no incentive for the UK or any other country in the world to go beyond superficial opposition to Israel’s actions. Months after the first Israeli public declaration about annexing over 30 per cent of the occupied West Bank, the international community is still debating how to retain its diplomatic edge over the US through the two-state compromise. At the same time, the international community has not completely ruled out collaborating on the Trump administration’s so-called deal of the century.