Prime minister Liz Truss has been urged by foreign policy experts to rethink her government’s review into moving the British embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as fears grow that a relocation could damage the UK’s reputation and jeopardise security in the region.
In a meeting with Israeli prime minister Yair Lapid in New York last month, Truss confirmed that she would review the current location of the British Embassy, which could see the UK follow the United States, which relocated its embassy to Jerusalem in 2018 during Donald Trump’s presidency.
During the Conservative leadership contest last summer, Truss wrote a letter to the Conservative Friends of Israel pledging that if she won she would “review a move to ensure we are operating on the strongest footing with Israel”. The letter, coupled with her remarks to Lapid, have sparked concern among diplomatic circles.
Britain’s current position is that Jerusalem should be the shared capital of Israel and a Palestinian state, subject to a negotiated settlement. Moving the embassy would be de facto recognition that the city was the capital of Israel alone.
Other than the US, only Kosovo, Honduras and Guatemala have located their embassies in Jerusalem.
Former foreign office minister Sir Alan Duncan, who held the post between 2016 and 2019, has warned that moving the embassy would be “reckless and unprincipled” and would “mark a fundamental shift in UK foreign policy”.
In a letter to the Financial Times he argued: “If pursued to its conclusion, moving the embassy would destroy the UK’s reputation for respecting international law, and it would undermine our standing in the world.”
Meanwhile, Alistair Burt, former foreign office minister and parliamentary under-secretary at the department, argued that a relocation would breach UN security council resolutions on Israel and Palestine that the UK has in the past supported.
“We urge other countries to work multilaterally and uphold their international commitments, and we would not want to be seen to be walking back on ours,” he said.
Sir Simon Fraser, former diplomat and former permanent under-secretary at the foreign office, argued that moving the embassy could signal a “weakening” of the UK’s commitment to the two-state solution.
Others have warned the decision could have further negative consequences for the UK. Sir Vincent Fean, former UK consul-general, Jerusalem, said the move would “antagonise the Arab and Muslim world, for no valid reason” and could jeopardise a trade deal between the UK and the Gulf Cooperation Council. The government hopes the deal will be worth more than £1.6bn per year to the UK economy.
Fean added that a move could also have stark security implications, noting that more than 50 Palestinians died in the aftermath of the US embassy move. “Lives are at risk,” he warned. “Jerusalem is a tinderbox. Ms Truss should extinguish her match”.
Downing Street said that work on the review was under way, but the government had not yet outlined a timetable for its conclusion.
Labour and the Liberal Democrats say they are opposed to any relocation of the embassy, while religious figures such as Cardinal Vincent Nichols, the archbishop of Westminster, and Justin Welby, the Archbishop of Canterbury, have urged the government to “reconsider” the move.
There is also unease over the matter in the Conservative parliamentary party. Writing in the Times this week, former party leader William Hague cautioned against any move, arguing that it would “align Britain in foreign affairs with Donald Trump”.
One senior backbencher, who described the prospect of the move as a “madness”, said MPs were concerned about how the move would be perceived by Muslim constituents and about the wider impact on British foreign policy interests and the stability of the region.
Another senior party figure warned that the move would “send jitters around the world”.
