Recognition is the Beginning: Advancing Parity of Esteem in UK Policy on Israel-Palestine
Dr Brian Brivati, Executive Director, Britain Palestine Project
With the rapid pushing of the 20 Point Trump plan and the UK and others historic recognition of the State of Palestine in September 2025, policymakers face a critical opportunity to reshape engagement in the Israel-Palestine conflict. A guiding principle should be parity of esteem – the equal respect and legitimacy afforded to both communities – a concept rooted in the Northern Ireland peace process. The then Conservative Secretary of State Sir Patrick Mayhew laid the ground work for parity of esteem in an April 1993 Speech which outlined the Framework for a Just Settlement:
Accordingly, each of the main components of the community will need to be given recognition by the other, and in any settlement each must be accorded parity of esteem, the validity of its tradition receiving unqualified recognition. Then each could find it equally appropriate for its members to play a full part in operating an agreed political system within Northern Ireland, acknowledging also the wider framework for relationships within these islands. The creation of local institutions and agencies which would engage both main parts of the community, acknowledging and reflecting their common interests, of which there are many, would enable politicians from all sides of the community to service and sustain a practicable and lasting accommodation.
This principle was enshrined in the 1998 Good Friday Agreement as a foundation for peace, requiring public power be exercised with “rigorous impartiality” and “on the principles of full respect for… parity of esteem and of just and equal treatment” for both sides of the community. The UK’s diplomatic leadership must now seek to apply this proven principle to Israel-Palestine.
Moral Imperative: No Hierarchy of Humanity
Embracing parity of esteem in the Israel-Palestine context is a moral imperative. It means ending any hierarchy of humanity – no life should be valued less due to nationality or religion. Yet narratives and policies have often betrayed a bias: critics note that Palestinian lives are too often “devalued,” revealing a troubling reality: some people are considered more human than others”. The horrendous toll of recent conflict – from the Hamas-led attack killing 1,200 Israelis to Israel’s offensive in Gaza killing over 60,000 recovered victims, with many thousands more still under the rubble, underscores that all civilian lives merit equal protection. The UK must forcefully reject any de facto hierarchy of victims: Israeli and Palestinian lives are equally precious, and their rights to security and self-determination equally inalienable. Parity of esteem aligns with Britain’s values and international legal obligations to uphold universal human rights and international humanitarian law without discrimination.
Foreign Policy Steps to Support Parity of Esteem
To operationalise parity of esteem in UK policy, the Government should pursue concrete measures – legal, diplomatic, and economic – that demonstrate equal respect for Israeli and Palestinian rights. Britain’s recent recognition of Palestine was a first step to protect the equal rights of both Israeli and Palestinian peoples, but it must be followed by sustained action. BPP’s statement on recognition outlines the actions the UK government should take to put pressure on Israel to uphold international law. There are further changes that the UK can now make to support the insertion of Parity of Esteem deeper into international processes. The UK can embody the Good Friday Agreement’s principle of “rigorous impartiality” in all diplomatic dealings. London will shortly have Palestinian Embassy in addition to Israel’s, UK officials should engage both governments on equal footing. This means high-level visits to Ramallah and Tel Aviv in parallel, treating Palestinian leaders with the same respect and access as Israeli leaders. British mediation or initiatives should frame Israel’s security and Palestine’s rights as co-equal priorities. All public statements on violence or violations must condemn all egregious acts – whether Hamas terror attacks or Israeli military excesses – with equal clarity. Demonstrating even-handed empathy builds trust and signals that the UK does not condone a hierarchy of suffering.
What would the UK giving full backing to parity of esteem look like?
The UK should reframe the Pathway to Peace to acknowledge two legitimate national movements. For now the focus is on achieving the cease fire and the prisoner release. The PA has called for a comprehensive peace conference under UN auspices where both Israeli and Palestinian representatives participate as equals. The agenda must address core issues (borders, security, Jerusalem, refugees) with no presumptive bias toward one side’s demands. As a permanent UN Security Council member, the UK could draft resolutions reaffirming the equal rights of both peoples and pressing for an immediate ceasefire and humanitarian access in Gaza, alongside a halt to settlement expansion in the West Bank.
The UK could propose confidence-building measures that reflect parity. It could support Palestinian participation in international forums and agencies (e.g. the UN, WHO, UNESCO) as a recognised state, bolstering their institutional capacity and voice. In parallel, Britain must continue to uphold Israel’s right to exist in peace and security, making clear that recognition of Palestine complements and does not diminish Israel’s legitimacy. By articulating mutual recognition – already implicit in UK policy – the Government reinforces that both nations’ identities and sovereignty deserve acknowledgment (just as the GFA recognised both British and Irish identities in NI).
The harder task is to move away from one sided conditionality in engagement with the State of Palestine compared with the State of Israel. This reflects what Mayhew called the cultural dimension of the two traditions. Here the lack equity is structured even into the conditionality on the provision of Aid. The EU conditions aid to the PA on the basis that textbooks used in schools remove anti-Israeli bias and provide a balanced narrative of the history of Palestine. There is no such conditionality placed on Israel, on Israel schools or on Israel textbooks which present the Israeli narrative in an entirely functional was as part of a broader system of cultural, political, economic and administrative apartheid.
The UK could use economic tools to reinforce that the UK will not entrench inequalities on the ground.
Britain should review its trade relationships to ensure they align with international law and parity. For example, the Government has already paused a prospective UK-Israel trade agreement in response to ongoing rights concerns; it should maintain this suspension until there is meaningful progress towards peace. Further, policymakers could explore targeted trade sanctions if grave breaches continue such as restricting imports tied to illegal settlements or human rights abuses. Conversely, the UK should expand trade and investment with the Palestinian economy to help close the developmental gap. Facilitating Palestinian exports, encouraging UK businesses to invest in the West Bank and Gaza, and guaranteeing that any future UK-Israel agreements explicitly exclude occupied territories are steps that treat Palestinian economic aspirations with due respect.
Parity of esteem also means investing in the future of both societies. The UK should increase technical and financial assistance to Palestinian institutions to support good governance, anti-corruption and elections, as already begun via the UK Envoy for PA Governance. Bolstering the capacity of the Palestinian Authority (conditioned on reforms and non-violence) helps create a credible partner for peace and demonstrates respect for Palestinian self-determination. Britain can encourage cooperative economic initiatives (e.g. joint water or energy projects, regional development programs) that contribute to the unification of the administrative functions of the Palestinian state across Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Finally, and much more complex in political terms is the ending of allied impunity for Israel. Allied impunity is the inconsistent and uneven application of UK unilateral sanctions and UK participation in multilateral sanctions. Israel is treated very differently from other states accused of the gravest international crimes. When countries such as Russia, Iran or North Korea are found responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity, or aggression, they are hit with comprehensive, state-wide sanctions: asset freezes, travel bans, restrictions on finance and trade, and sweeping arms embargoes. By contrast, Israel, though accused not only of these crimes but also of apartheid and the deliberate use of starvation, has not faced a comparable sanctions regime. Instead, it is subject only to a patchwork of measures, limited in scope and unevenly applied. A handful of states have acted—Belgium banning settlement goods, Ireland preparing similar legislation, Norway enforcing a de facto arms embargo, or Turkey oscillating between symbolic downgrades and continued trade. More recently, an emerging set of states known as the Hague Group, led by South Africa and Colombia has sought to escalate pressure through legal challenges, diplomatic breaks and collective arms embargoes. Yet these remain far short of a comprehensive sanctions regime on the State of Israel.
The decisive difference lies in the protection Israel receives from its closest allies. The United States and others not only block efforts to impose sanctions but continue to provide substantial military and economic support. They have even gone so far as to sanction international bodies like the ICC when those bodies pursue accountability for Israel. This shielding creates a striking double standard: where adversarial states are isolated, Israel remains integrated into the global economy and international system, its allied impunity preserved by the political will of its partners. Israel is held to a wholly different standard from other sanctioned states, with consequences both for the credibility of international law and for the prospects of peace.
Parity of Esteem in Post-War Gaza Governance
Recent proposals for Gaza’s post-war governance – notably former PM Tony Blair’s draft GITA plan and the so-called “GREAT Gaza” initiative – have drawn sharp criticism for echoing neo-colonial paradigms. These plans have largely been conceived by external actors (U.S., Israeli, and regional officials) with minimal Palestinian involvement. Indeed, Blair’s working group on Gaza included Jared Kushner, an Israeli minister and others – but no Palestinian principals (Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas was merely briefed after the fact, with “little indication that Palestinians have any real say” in the plan). Such external imposition fundamentally undermines Palestinian agency and parity of esteem: it treats Palestinians as passive subjects rather than equal partners in determining their own destiny.
The content of these proposals has only heightened concerns. Blair’s draft envisions a transitional international administration (a “Gaza International Transitional Authority”) overseeing Gaza, with outsiders dominant and at most a token Palestinian voice on its board. Similarly, the Trump-backed “GREAT” plan (Gaza Reconstitution, Economic Acceleration and Transformation) projects a decade-long foreign trusteeship over Gaza. It calls for “voluntary” relocation of much of Gaza’s population and envisions 10 years of U.S.-led governance, massive externally driven investment, and new cities built across the Strip. In reality these two plans are converging and will likely form the basis of an imposed “peace plan”, that will amount to an imposed trusteeship that delays Palestinian self-rule indefinitely. Far from fostering Palestinian self-determination, such schemes are seen by critics as “anything but well-meaning” – a foreign authority imposed for at least ten years without [Palestinian] consent, offering “nothing to enhance Palestinian national aspirations for self-determination on their own land”. This runs directly counter to the principles of parity of esteem.
BPP is still reviewing all the current proposals and will be publishing our collective position in the near future as we see events unfold. In my opinion, Yet parity of esteem can still be advanced if these proposals are fundamentally restructured to centre Palestinian rights and agency. To align any post-war Gaza plan with the principles of parity of esteem and a just peace through equal recognition, it should incorporate the following adjustments:
Palestinian ownership and consent: Any governance arrangement must be designed with and by Palestinians, not imposed upon them. No external authority can be legitimate without Palestinian consent.
Clear path to self-determination: Transitional measures should include firm guarantees of Palestinian sovereignty on a short, defined timeline – not a vague 10-year (or longer) tutelage. Concrete steps like early free elections and the reintegration of Gaza and the West Bank under a single Palestinian national authority are critical. Notably, Palestinian civil society and regional partners have championed an Egypt/Arab League plan that would empower Palestinian technocrats under the PA, hold elections, and reunify Gaza with the West Bank as part of an eventual Palestinian state.
Equal rights and dignity as guiding principles: The planning and implementation of Gaza’s future must explicitly uphold equal rights, security, and opportunity for Palestinians – equivalent to any other nation’s citizens. This means rejecting any framework that places Palestinian lives or freedoms second to others. Governance and security arrangements should be built on mutual respect and protection of human rights, so that Palestinians in Gaza enjoy the same human worth and recognition as Israelis (or international administrators). By rooting policy in equal esteem – valuing Palestinian lives and aspirations on par with all others – the cycle of grievance and hierarchy can be broken.
In summary, advancing parity of esteem in Israel-Palestine requires that post-war arrangements do not repeat the mistakes of colonial history. Plans like Blair’s and the “Great Gaza” proposal, in their current form, risk perpetuating the very imbalances that parity of esteem seeks to eliminate, ironic of course because building on the work of Patrick Mayhew and John Major, it was ultimately Tony Blair who delivered the Good Friend Agreement from which the concept of parity of esteem flows.