The UK-Israel 2030 Roadmap is STILL in place

JVL Introduction

We are grateful to Teresa Thornhill for drawing attention to the 2030 Roadmap for UK Israel relations.  Signed in 2023 under a Tory government, concerns were raised about at the time as you can see in this statement by the Palestine Mission Palestinian Mission   and in this letter from Jews for Justice for Palestinians. 

These concerns predated the genocide – because, of course, this did not start on October 7th 2023.  Negotiated under the then Tory government,  the Labour (sic) government has yet to stop it and, indeed,  appears to be operating within this framework despite the angry words of recent days. The suspension of trade negotiations announced by the government did not suspend existing trade agreements which continue.

Here Teresa Thornhill outlines some of the many things that are problematic about this: of course Palestinians are barely mentioned and yet there is a large section on addressing antisemitism, using the IHRA as the “benchmark”. As an additional point, it is worth noting that since March 2025, Israel has held the Presidency of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance.

This is another thing to raise with your MPs.

LL

No doubt many of us were relieved on 20 May to hear David Lammy announce the suspension of negotiations for a free trade agreement between the UK and Israel, in response to Israel’s genocidal actions in Gaza. What he didn’t announce, but we must now press for, is the suspension or, better, revocation of the 2030 Roadmap for UK-Israel bilateral relations.

This extraordinary document, negotiated and signed under the Tories in March 2023, but quietly left in place by Starmer, goes a long way to explaining the latter’s refusal to challenge Israel and his insistence on continuing to permit the indirect sale to it of lethal UK-made F35 aircraft parts and other military hardware. The letter was sent to the government  (on 26.5.25) by 800 lawyers, KCs and judges, demanding “concrete action” against Israel, included a request that the whole roadmap be suspended.

Since its initial release, it has been largely forgotten in the context of so many other things to try to keep hold of.  The “roadmap”  is easily available to read in full  ‘UK government website, where it is described as a ‘policy paper’.

We need to publicise its existence as widely as possible and demand that it be suspended without more ado.

Signed on 21.3.2023, the Roadmap asserts the strength and mutual importance of the relationship between the UK and Israel, sets out intentions for collaboration in almost every area of state and business activity, barely acknowledges the existence of the Palestinian people, fails altogether to mention the illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and includes strong and highly inappropriate statements that Britain will fight anti-semitism and shield Israel from criticism by international bodies such as the UN.

A Memorandum of Understanding signed by the UK and Israel in November 2021 elevated the UK-Israel relationship to a ‘strategic partnership’ and aimed to expand cooperation in cyber, technology, trade and defence. The Roadmap outlines how ‘this strategic partnership will continue to serve our collective interests’. It ‘is underpinned by extensive security and defence cooperation that continue to safeguard the UK and Israel’s national security.’ Israel and the UK will cooperate… ‘jointly to counter global challenges and threats.’

Now comes the first and only mention of the Palestinian people in the entire document:

“We will cooperate in improving Palestinian livelihoods and Palestinian economic development.”

There is no mention of the occupation nor of illegal settlement activity in the West Bank.

The document continues:

“We remain united in our shared concern towards Iran’s nuclear activities and tackling Iran’s destabilising and malign activity in the Middle East, whether engaged in directly or through proxies and terrorist groups.”

After a passing reference to the significance of the Abraham Accords (2020 peace agreements between Israel on the one hand and the UAE, Bahrain and Morocco on the other), the document goes on to summarise the areas in which the UK and Israel intend to cooperate and bolster each other:  ‘innovation to solve regional technology and sustainability issues across the Middle East’ through the Britain Israel Investment Group (BIIG), which ‘will promote and demonstrate the benefits of cooperation with Israel’ (my italics); scientific and academic collaboration; the creation of jobs and fuelling of economic growth; a new ambitious free trade agreement; environmental sustainability; climate innovation; health; and then this:

“We are equally determined to increase cooperation to tackle the global scourge of antisemitism. There is simply no place for antisemitism in this world. Israel and the UK will be front and centre in leading efforts to tackle this reprehensible phenomenon, as well as efforts to de-legitimise or demonise Israel, wherever and whenever it occurs (my italics).”

What this means in practise is spelled out in more detail in the main body of the document.

Under the heading ‘1. Partnership’, the following statement appears:

“Israel and the UK are united in the common belief that a democracy – which empowers citizens with the opportunity to innovate, create, and fulfil their dreams – is the finest form of government. We are clear that democratic norms are the mainstay for maintaining a rules-based international system and respect for universal human rights.”

In the light of the aggression against Gazan civilians unleashed by Israel over the last 20 months, with British collusion and assistance, the claim that Israel and the UK share an interest in a rules-based international system and respect for universal human rights seems nothing short of mendacious.

The document goes on to state ‘we will upgrade the institutional mechanisms that enable us to set and achieve goals across our mutual priorities.’ It then details cooperation that is required in the areas of ‘Strategic dialogue’, ‘Diplomacy’, Parliamentary exchanges’ to foster deeper mutual understanding’, ‘Academic cooperation’, ‘Regional cooperation’ and ‘Multilateral cooperation’ (which includes advancing Israel-UK alignment on key global challenges, as well as coordination in the UN and other multilateral fora).

In light of the extreme right wing government controlling Israel both at the time the Roadmap was signed and continuing, this is all very concerning. It demonstrates the UK’s willingness to collude with an extremist government which even in early 2023 had long demonstrated its lack of respect for democracy, a rules-based international system and universal human rights.

Para. 2 headed ‘Antisemitism, delegitimization and anti-Israel bias’ contains the toxic heart of the document. After setting out a joint intention to combat antisemitism ‘wherever and whenever it occurs’ and committing the UK to open a new national Holocaust memorial and learning centre, a number of further goals are set out which I will quote in full below. The italics are mine.

“b. Multilateral cooperation: strengthening cooperation and coordination in multilateral fora to confront antisemitism, delegitimisation and anti-Israel bias including:

1. promoting resolutions and actions that tackle the global scourge of antisemitism and Holocaust denial and distortion, both on and offline.
2. Tackling the disproportionate focus on Israel in the UN and other international bodies, including attempts to delegitimise it or deny its right to self-defence. All states have a duty to comply with their obligations under international law, but scrutiny must be measured, impartial and proportionate. The UK and Israel will work together to tackle the singling out of Israel in the Human Rights Council as well as in other international bodies. In this context, the UK and Israel disagree with the use of the term ‘apartheid’ with regard to Israel.

The UK and Israel believe that the latest ICJ referral on the Israeli- Palestinian conflict represents an inappropriate recourse to the Advisory Opinion mechanism as this undermines the efforts to achieve a settlement through direct negotiations between the parties, which remains the only viable path to a lasting peace.’[i]

1. International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA):
2. The UK will use its position as chair of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance in 2024 to promote fact-based knowledge about the history of the Holocaust and strengthen media and information literacy. Israel and the UK will also continue to encourage the adoption of the alliance’s working definition of antisemitism as well as the definition on Holocaust denial and distortion. Israel has submitted its candidacy for presidency of IHRA in 2025. In this capacity both Israel and the UK may cooperate as part of the IHRA ‘troika’.
3. Israel and the UK will explore opportunities to work with governments, civil society organisations and tech companies to address the proliferation of antisemitism and Holocaust denial and distortion online. Both sides agree to conduct a yearly dialogue on antisemitism and Holocaust remembrance. The goal of these meetings will be to exchange knowledge and explore possible cooperation.

iii. Combatting de-legitimisation: both countries are committed to fighting all forms of antisemitism including in its modern form of de-legitimisation of the State of Israel, as elaborated in the IHRA definition.

1. The UK reaffirms its objection to Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions campaigns. Such campaigns are at variance with UK government policy, and not only unfairly single out Israel and undermine efforts to advance Israeli-Palestinian dialogue and reconciliation, but can contribute to the deplorable rise of antisemitism in the UK. The UK is committed to ending any such campaigns by public bodies, including through legislation.”

The commitments made by the UK in b (ii) above to ‘tackle’ the ‘disproportionate focus on Israel in the UN and other international bodies’ and to ‘tackle the singling out of Israel in the Human Rights Council as well as in other international bodies’ are very worrying. As one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, is the UK within its rights to fetter its discretion to operate independently, by agreeing to put forward the interests of another state? And more generally, is it not clear that such an agreement tacitly accepts that the UN and other international bodies do focus disproportionately (implied unfairly) on Israel, thus undermining the credibility of the very institutions that were established to uphold the rules-based order worldwide?

And even if it were within the UK’s rights to do that, what does it gain by fettering its political independence in this way? How can it possibly be in our interests to have agreed to take the steps set out in b (ii) regardless of Israel’s conduct? What seems to have happened as a result of the UK agreeing the Roadmap is that, as a state, we have become caught up and complicit in the lying, dishonesty and twisting of concepts at which Israel is so adept. Thus we have seen Starmer endlessly repeating that Israel has a ‘right to self defence’ regardless of the vengeful and illegal nature of its attacks on civilians, medics and journalists in Gaza; refusing to allow David Lammy to say more than that Israel is ‘at risk’ of breaching international humanitarian law; and refusing to use the term ‘genocide’ for what almost all legal scholars agree is just that.

The remainder of the Roadmap sets out the detail of the proposed enmeshing of the Israeli and British security apparatuses, economies and many other areas subject to government influence, under the headings Defence and Security (including ‘strengthening cooperation to take decisive and concerted actions against globally designated terrorists and terrorist entities’); Trade and investment (this is where the UK commits to entering ‘an enhanced, higher ambition free trade agreement’); Cyber (‘cooperation between Israel and the UK is vital in order to counter efforts by malign forces’); Science, innovation and technology; Climate; Health; Culture; Education and higher education; Development (no mention of Palestine or Palestinians here, as had been suggested in the introductory  section) and Gender.  It is worth including the following quote from the section on defence and security, under the subheading Iran:

“We support a stable, secure and peaceful region where all can benefit from the rapid advances taking place and closer social, economic and technological ties.”

Israel’s actions in the region, including in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem as well as Lebanon and Syria, and its constant rhetoric on the need for aggression against Iran, renders this statement risible.

Almost every paragraph warrants  study and highlighting in future publicity.  These are just some of the heinous aspects of this document.

By continuing to sell and (allegedly) transport weapons to Israel and by flying reconnaissance flights over Gaza, Starmer’s government is already complicit in the genocide. Para 2 of the Roadmap seems to reveal a pre-existing willingness to co-operate with Israel  in international legal fora, even where that may involve twisting the meaning of words and turning a blind eye to overwhelming evidence.

Further, the policies set out in the Roadmap appear to call into question the position officially held by the UK government when the document was signed, namely support for a two-state solution. Given the lack of reference in the Roadmap to the illegal occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and lack of reference to the illegal settlements that now cover so much of the West Bank’s territory; and given the enthusiastic embracing of a future in which Britain and Israel operate as ‘firm friends and natural allies’, readers of the Roadmap are likely to infer that the two state solution has been quietly forgotten. And if that is the case, as Palestinian Ambassador to the UK Dr Husam Zumlot pointed out shortly after the Roadmap was first published, why did the UK not make this explicit?

By failing to revoke the Roadmap while claiming to support  a two-state solution, Keir Starmer reveals just how dishonest and contradictory his Middle East policy is.

The existence of the Roadmap must now be widely publicised, alongside a campaign to have it at the least suspended, but, preferably, revoked.

[i] This is the application to the International Criminal Court which did rule, in July 2024 that Israel’s Occupation of the West Bank, Gaza, East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights is illegal and must end

Teresa Thornhill is a retired Child Protection Lawyer, member of Hastings Jews for Justice and has written a number of Books including (in 1992) “Making Women Talk: the Interrogation of Palestinian Women Security Detaineees by the Israeli General Security Services” with a foreword by Sir Geoffrey Bindman