UK must take ‘side of peace’ between Israel and Lebanon, says former ambassador

We’re joined by Sir William Patey, the former British Ambassador to several countries, including Saudi Arabia and Iraq, who is at Labour Conference with the Labour Middle East Council.

Cathy Newman: Sir William, hundreds now dead in Lebanon just today, according to the government there. The UK has got to tread this difficult diplomatic path, hasn’t it, as an ally of both Lebanon and Israel? How do you suggest they do that?

Sir William Patey: This is difficult. They have to reassure Israel that they are supportive of its security, while at the same time sending a clear message to the Israeli government that actually what we need is de-escalation. We need a ceasefire in Gaza. We need a ceasefire in Lebanon, and we need to stop the activities in the West Bank by the extreme settlers. So you’ve got that balance to strike between the criticism of Israel and reassuring Israel that we’re also a friend of Israel. There have been calls today for arms embargoes and all sorts of things.

Cathy Newman: To go further, aren’t those calls justified?

Sir William Patey: I think the government has taken reasonable steps to analyse the arms supplies to Israel that might be used in Gaza in contravention of international humanitarian law. So they’ve done that. But you’ve got to balance between reassuring the Israelis that they can live behind secure and safe borders, but at the same time saying their denial of justice for the Palestinians is unacceptable. It’s a difficult balancing act which the government has to get right.

Cathy Newman: And as the war escalates, if it does, as this conflict escalates, does the UK government have to avoid sort of taking sides?

Sir William Patey: No, I think they have to take the side of peace and they have to take the side of de-escalation. So they have sent clear messages to Israel that their escalation of recent weeks, and it’s clear the Israeli government have escalated the indiscriminate attacks against Hezbollah, the killing of the Hezbollah leader in an apartment block in Lebanon and now extensive bombing throughout Lebanon, Beirut, elsewhere in the Beqaa Valley. That is an escalation because we’ve assumed that nobody wanted a wider Middle East war. I’m not sure we can assume that that’s the current position of the Israeli government.

Cathy Newman: But a ground invasion from Israel, you don’t see that over the horizon?

Sir William Patey: I see it’s a distinct possibility. I mean, the logic is I think the Israelis are looking for an excuse. If you look at these provocations, if you like, they’re hoping for a Hezbollah response that would justify them going, despite the terrible history of Israeli invasions. I’m old enough to remember the invasion in 1982 led to the formation of Hezbollah. It didn’t exist before an Israeli invasion. So there’s a long history of failed invasions.

Cathy Newman: And so what are the implications for the region more broadly if there is a ground invasion?

Sir William Patey: Then there’s the possibility of Iran getting involved in support of Hezbollah. And we saw when Iran fired over 300 missiles and rockets at Israel that the UK and the United States came to Israel’s defence in that sense. So they would be faced with a dilemma again. Imagine Iran getting directly involved in defending Hezbollah and defending Lebanon. The prospects of a wider Middle East war are clear.

Cathy Newman: And just very briefly, Lebanon’s prime minister said it’s a genocide that we’re seeing. Hospitals have been targeted, women and children killed. Your take on that?

Sir William Patey: I think the word genocide is used pretty indiscriminately. It’s clearly the possibility of war crimes and atrocities. Targeting civilian areas is indisputably a war crime. So I always worry when you throw around the genocide word. War crimes are bad enough.