Lammy’s mission in Israel is proof Britain can still lead on the world stage

Editorial: Despite growing tension in the region, the joint visit to the Middle East by the British foreign secretary and his French counterpart provides grounds for optimism

David Lammy has condemned the ‘widespread rampage’ of Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank (PA)

The Starmer administration is fond of the term “mission” to frame its policy initiatives – and a mission of peace is very much what foreign secretary David Lammy and his French counterpart, Stephane Sejourne, are engaged upon in their joint visit to Israel.

Given the tense situation, Mr Lammy was wise to manage expectations by describing this moment as a dangerous one, which is an understatement given Iran’s pending retaliatory attack on Israel.

It was no great surprise that the tireless US secretary of state, Antony Blinken, cancelled his own visit to the region earlier in the week as Iran continues to threaten Israel. Now it is the turn of the Europeans to try to make a difference.

The aim of the Anglo-French mission, the first in a decade, is admirably clear. Referring to the ceasefire talks being sponsored by Qatar and Egypt, Mr Lammy has declared: “These talks are an opportunity to secure an immediate ceasefire that protects civilians in Gaza, secures the release of hostages still cruelly held by Hamas and restores stability at a dangerous moment for the region.”

Mr Lammy is working not only in concert with Mr Sejourne, but has the backing of the US and Germany (by far the two biggest suppliers of arms to Israel), and has spoken to the Iranian and Egyptian leaders in preparation for the meeting following Sir Keir Starmer’s well-publicised call to President Masoud Pezeshkian in Tehran earlier in the week.

So the ground has been well-prepared, and, despite the escalating tensions and the threat of a mass bombardment of Israel by Iran, there is some cause for optimism.

Traditionally, the EU and the UK have often been more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than the United States (and markedly so during the Trump presidency), and the British and French still punch above their weight in the region. Both powers carry the legacy of the colonial era, when between them they administered present-day Palestine, Israel, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, as well as the smaller Gulf States. One of Mr Lammy’s more notable predecessors gave rise to the Balfour Declaration, calling for a homeland of the Jewish people; and it was British and French diplomats who during the First World War designed the Sykes-Picot agreement, and delineated the borders of most of the modern Middle Eastern states of today.

The Lammy-Sejourne double act thus carries some notoriety for Suez and other past blunders, and interference in the affairs of Iran and the rest of the region, but the historical legacy, albeit decidedly mixed, does mean that these two medium-sized powers can exert a certain amount of influence. This is especially the case now, when the US is entering a period of political uncertainty itself, with all eyes on the November election.

Other factors are also at play, in a positive fashion. Iran has reportedly let it be known to the Israelis that if they call a ceasefire in Gaza, they will not attack Israel. This would offer both parties a way to de-escalate matters after Israel’s assassination of the Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran.

With civilian casualties in Gaza now exceeding 40,000 and no sign of Israel winning the war in terms of permanently destroying Hamas, thoughts on all sides are turning to the next steps.

Those steps are not easy to plot, especially as Hamas has still not committed to this round of talks. However, there is at least clarity on the issues and the immediate risks: an end to the fighting; the return of Israeli and other hostages; release of certain Palestinian prisoners; the role of Hamas in the future governance of Gaza or the wider Palestinian state; reconstruction of Gaza; Israel’s obligations as the occupying power and its need to protect its own security after the 7 October attack.

Even more of an immediate risk to the success of these talks than the threatened Iranian response to the Haniyeh assassination is the spike in Israeli settler violence directed at Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. With the war in Gaza in stalemate and the instability around southern Lebanon, a relapse of the West Bank into some kind of intifada would lead to yet more unpredictable consequences. There are signs that, unusually, the Netanyahu government is prepared to deal with the settlers who torched a Palestinian village and killed a young Palestinian man. Benjamin Netanyahu is torn between trying to “win” an unwinnable war and secure the release of the hostages for the sake of his parlous domestic political position, and pressing on with a war that isn’t going to secure the hostages or deliver peace. These talks offer an opportunity for him to get his kidnapped people home, to declare victory and end the killing.

The balance of preferences with Hamas, on the other hand, is to try and use Iran as its proxy-in-reverse, and stir up tensions so that Israel finds itself under attack from multiple sources – Iran, Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen. War is still Hamas’s preferred path, and there should be no illusions about how little the organisation cares about the Palestinian people. They remain a formidable obstacle to permanent peace, and their efforts to drag Iran into the conflict are endless. In a similar way, it might still suit Mr Netanyahu to see America confront Iran and use its might to knock out the ayatollah’s nuclear programme.

There are, unfortunately, incentives for both sides – Israel and Hamas – to continue, intensify and expand this pitiless war. That is why the mission led by Mr Lammy and Mr Sejourne is so difficult, but also why it is so important.