logo
Israeli ambassador: The two-state solution is over. We are no longer willing to jeopardise our security

Israeli ambassador: The two-state solution is over. We are no longer willing to jeopardise our security

Telegraph4 days ago

Contrary to her combative image, Tzipi Hotovely, Israel's ambassador to the UK, is softly spoken and seems slightly anxious. The night before this interview, she appeared on Piers Morgan Uncensored, where the host shouted at her about the body count in Gaza. The embassy is wary of a rematch.
So I put her at ease by calling Piers 'history's greatest monster', causing her to laugh and relax. The problem with coverage of Gaza is that emotions run so high, every discussion ends up feeling like an interrogation – and the Israelis push back with force. What outsiders often forget is that beneath the rhetorical fireworks lies a deep pain.
Speaking at her embassy, flanked by UK and Israeli flags, with a bust of Golda Meir (the fourth prime minister of Israel) watching in the corner, Hotovely tells me 'everyone in Israel is traumatised' by the events of Oct 7 2023. On that date, Hamas – which controls Gaza – invaded southern Israel, murdering and kidnapping more than a thousand people.
'We, as Israelis, have been through terror attacks in our coffee shops, on our buses, on our streets, but never in the past did we feel like our houses were not safe.' This is their new 'vulnerability: the feeling that you cannot protect your own children'.
But foreign governments – even allies like Britain – are concerned about the safety of Palestinian children too: used as human shields by Hamas, and some killed in Israeli airstrikes.
How do you fight a terror group that rejects all the accepted rules of war?
'October 7 was a watershed moment'
Hotovely, 46, wears regal purple and leans forward as she speaks, injecting urgency into the conversation. Her parents, Gabriel and Roziko, migrated to Israel from the former USSR and raised Tzipi in Rehovot, an attractive city south of Tel Aviv. Conservative and religious, she studied and practised law before gaining attention as a pundit. In 2009, she was elected to the Knesset – its youngest deputy at the time – as a member of Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud party, and went on to serve as minister for transport, science, foreign affairs and settlements. She lives with her husband, Or Alon, and their three daughters.
When she was appointed ambassador to London in 2020, some British Jews objected, labelling Hotovely too controversial for such a sensitive role. But perhaps that was the idea. Many states are shifting their diplomatic style from emollience to advocacy. Since October 7th, Hotovely has become a formidable presence in the media and on campuses , vigorously defending her government against accusations she often describes as 'a blood libel' – against Jews as well as Israelis.
I begin by asking the mood of her citizens 19 months on from the Hamas pogrom. 'I think that October 7th was a watershed moment… all across Israel. No one can say in Israel that he's the same person after.' She sometimes finds 'less sympathy among people around the world' – some governments still live in the mentality of 'October 6th' – but Israelis have been shown 'that if you have a jihadi, Islamist terrorist group that wants to destroy you on your doorstep, at the end of the day, it'll end up in a massacre.' Think of it as living next-door to the 'Third Reich'.
'Just this morning, we heard about […] a 15-day-old baby who died in a terror attack': Israeli Ravid Haim, born by emergency C-section after his mother, Tzeela Fez, was shot and killed. Around 58 hostages remain in Hamas's hands. To recover them, the Israeli army has launched 'Operation Gideon's Chariots' – aiming to seize control of the Gaza Strip, push the population south and cripple the enemy's military.
'The aims of the war are very clear to Israel,' explains Hotovely, 'Hamas shouldn't exist as a political leadership and with military power after we finish.' Hamas 'doesn't care about human life […] doesn't care about their own people's life'.
Hence it has embedded its fighters in a network of tunnels 'six floors down […] bigger than the London Tube', and deliberately located beneath civilian areas. 'They wanted to make sure Israel will be blamed' when civilians are killed during Israeli attacks. 'We don't call it collateral damage. We really care about human life. We don't want anyone who's innocent to get killed. That's why we make sure that all Palestinians can move to a safe zone.'
But the UK Government has condemned the civilian impact of 'Gideon's Chariots'. Israel imposed a blockade on humanitarian aid and commercial supplies on March 2 – now lifted – that Foreign Secretary David Lammy called 'morally unjustifiable, wholly disproportionate and counterproductive'; he cancelled talks on a trade deal and summoned Hotovely to the ministry to explain her government's actions.
Lammy, she says, was wrong: 'Israel's policy from the beginning of the war was to deliver aid to Gaza.' Some '25,000 trucks of aid got into Gaza. This is not a starvation programme, this is actually a flooding Gaza with aid programme […] The reason why it had to stop was because it was being looted only to feed the terrorists' or 'to sell the aid that people were supposed to get for free'.
I ask whether this is an example of Israel alienating its friends with such brutal logic. Hamas steals food – that's bad; anyone would want to stop it. But if Israel cuts off food altogether, isn't the outcome even worse for innocent civilians?
'If there is lack of food,' Hotovely replies, 'I can understand your argument', but the Israelis calculated that there was enough aid already within the Gaza Strip to pause deliveries while they build a 'new mechanism' for distribution, not overseen by the UN. This would be the American-run Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, now operating in Gaza – accused of being partisan and insufficient, and there have been riots at its deliveries. 'That was just the first day,' she corrects, 'it's been improving and I keep on monitoring it as ambassador.'
'A clash of civilisations'
What about Labour's other charge – that 'Gideon's Chariots' has driven up the death toll? I cite the case of Dr Alaa al-Najjar, a Palestinian doctor whose home was hit in an Israeli strike, killing nine of her 10 children. 'How does that make you feel?'
'I'll tell you how it makes me feel. It makes me feel how tragic the situation is that Hamas built this infrastructure that is hurting his own children. I have a lot of sympathy to human life. As a Jew, as an Israeli, we value life very much. Unfortunately, our enemies don't […] I think it's a clash of civilisations [...] I find that Western people find it very hard to believe that on the other side, there are people who are using their own children as human shields,' but they do.
Dr al-Najjar wasn't using her own children as a shield though, was she? 'No, I didn't say that, but I said Hamas built all its terrible infrastructure within the population, in the schools, in the hospitals... Are we doing our best to make sure that population civilians will be out of harm? Yes, we are. We give them messaging before we strike… Now, think about it. Do you think the UK would have continued living next to a terror organisation that is a threat to your children in Kent? Or in London or in Liverpool? I don't think so.'
I point out that it isn't just non-Israelis who are turning against the war. Ehud Olmert, a former prime minister of Israel, and member of Likud, is now at odds with Netanyhu, writing that the conflict is one of 'devastation, indiscriminate, limitless, cruel, and criminal killing of civilians.' He has concluded that his country 'is committing war crimes'. What does Hotovely say to him?
'It is a lie. Yes, it is. It is a pure lie.' The Israeli Defence Forces 'work with all the mechanisms of our international law experts' and the country is 'fighting with one hand tied behind our back' because it always defers to lawyers. 'Olmert is completely doing a political statement to hurt the government… It's coming from very political reasons, not to do with what's happening on the ground.'
So why are the families of hostages – and even a former hostage – protesting against Netanyahu? At a demonstration this week, Keith Siegel, who was once held prisoner by Hamas, declared:'Our families have become the victims of cheap politics at the hands of the prime minister. Instead of ending the war and bringing everyone home, his allies prefer to occupy the Gaza Strip than to save the hostages.'
Hotovely says: 'I have sympathy to every hostage family for being so worried about their loved ones, I cannot put myself in their shoes. At the same time, I must say, they need to remember Israel said yes to any framework offered by the Americans' for a ceasefire: 'This is the leverage on Hamas, the military pressure together with the American diplomatic pressure, and if Hamas is saying 'no' and saying 'no' again and again' to hostage release 'what else can we do? We can just carry on with the pressure.'
Following our interview, it was reported on Friday that Hamas appears to have rejected a ceasefire deal orchestrated by the Americans and accepted by the Israelis.
Recognition of Palestinian state 'a reward for terrorism'
Lammy's condemnation of the embargo was, says Hotovely, 'the wrong timing' because it was issued 'the same day the [Netanyahu's] cabinet made the decision to let aid in'; plus the 'wrong message because, I'm sure you heard the head of the opposition, Kemi Badenoch, saying: 'when Hamas is praising you'' – as Hamas praised the UK – ''then you need to check whether your politics is the right policy'.'
'We are expecting the international community, including the UK Government, to be very vocal about the fact that Hamas is holding our hostages and it must release them.'
Britain and Israel are 'fighting mutual threats. I know how much the UK is concerned about Iran's influence in the region, and you need to remember that this war Israel has been fighting is a proxy war with Iran […] We've seen how most of the weapons being found are produced in Iran, how Iran was training the terrorists.'
As for a French-Saudi initiative, scheduled for mid-June, to discuss the recognition of Palestine as an independent state: 'This is probably the worst timing ever to go this path [...] this is a pure word for terrorism and sends the wrong message to the region [...] What did October 7th prove? First of all, unfortunately what we've seen is big support among Palestinians towards the massacre.'
One poll, she claims, found 86 per cent of West Bank residents sympathised with the pogrom. Gaza previously voted for Hamas, 'so recognition basically means Hamas' and would be a 'reward for terrorism'.
I ask if this means the concept of a two-state solution is off the table and she replies in the affirmative. 'It was rejected by the Palestinians again and again. Israelis had hope [in it] in the 1990s and were willing to compromise, but […] every time there was some type of negotiation, there was more terrorism […] So Israelis are no longer willing to jeopardise their security any longer.'
This is a critical point – one that many Britons don't grasp. Governments like Labour talk about the two-state solution as if it were genuinely on the table, but the two sides gave up on it years ago. In that case, what does the Israeli government see as the future of the Palestinian community?
They must be re-educated. 'It's a good lesson to learn from the Second World War,' when Germany and Japan were beaten: fascism 'didn't end in one day, there was a whole process of denazification, a whole process of rebuilding the institutions to a democratic country. The Palestinians, when they were offered to have democratic elections' – in January 2006 – 'they ended up with having an even worse dictatorship that doesn't believe in any human rights.'
She implies that if fresh elections were held again in Gaza, we'd see Hamas victorious again, so she says 'we need to build the path not just for peace as a formal peace but a real peace, people to people, like the one we have with the Gulf countries via the Abrahamic Accords', as negotiated by Donald Trump.
'We never deny the rights of us to live next to our neighbours – they deny our rights'
Surely there must be some give and take between communities, I suggest? In that case, the Israelis must cease building settlements in the West Bank – 22 of which have just been recognised by Netanyahu.
'There is a myth about settlements I never understood,' says Hotovely, 'because when Israel [dismantled its] settlements in Gaza' – when it physically withdrew the strip in 2005 – 'we didn't see anything that has improved in the Palestinian attitude.'
When Palestinians are asked 'what is the main problem,' she tells me, they never say the settlements but instead demand 'the right of return,' which means 'bringing people from all around the Arab world to move into small Israel.' I suggest that, on the contrary, they are protesting against Israelis settling on land that even Israel officially recognises as Palestinian – and Hotovely disagrees.
'Definitely not. I think that it's clear for Israelis when we're speaking about Judea and Samaria [better known as the West Bank], and we're speaking about Jerusalem, we're speaking about the Golan Heights, we're speaking about the Jewish historic land.'
In conservative Israeli rhetoric, the term 'Judea and Samaria' implies that the West Bank is Israeli as bequeathed by the Bible. 'We're talking about some places that Jewish people have been connected to for thousands of years,' says Hotovely. Yes, I reply, and Palestinians have been connected to them for a very long time, too. 'We're not denying that. That's what's nice about our attitude,' she says, 'we never deny the rights of us to live next to our neighbours – they deny our rights.'
We turn to the subject of anti-Semitism – on May 21, Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Lynn Milgrim, staffers at the Israeli embassy in Washington DC, were shot and murdered outside a Jewish museum. The killer cried 'free Palestine.' Can Hotovely see a line between anti-Israeli protest and a rising level of threat against Jews across the world?
'We had very difficult days right in the embassy here. I gave a talk to our embassy staff and we wanted them to feel very open with us about their concerns.' She is grateful for the protection of the British authorities but doesn't feel 'anti-Semitism is under control [… ] Let's speak about how the propaganda in the streets of London, New York and Berlin can influence a terrorist that is taking a weapon and killing two young, beautiful people […] This is the kind of madness we're dealing with, something totally irrational, and I think it's been fuelled by anti-Semitism and the fact that some of those marches that are calling for horrific things against Jews are allowed in Western main cities.'
I bring up Gary Lineker, who infamously shared an anti-Semitic image of a rat – a genuine error, he insisted, for which he subsequently apologised – and wonder, to quote a friend, if we're seeing the revival of an 'oblivious anti-Semitism': old tropes being used in ignorance of the offence they cause. The winner of Eurovision, for example, has suggested that Israel be banned from next year's show in Vienna – without a shadow of irony or historical awareness.
'I agree, but I think that it's not the majority of the people in this country. I think the minority is vocal. And I think when the majority keeps silent about bad things, this is when we get to hear the radicals, raising their voice.'
'Many Western countries that used to feel safe don't feel safe anymore'
Anti-Jewish hate 'is dangerous to this country, just like it's dangerous to America and Australia and many other Western countries that used to feel very safe and they don't feel safe anymore.'
Hotovely cites the success of Israel at Eurovision – top in popular vote, pushed into second by the juries – as a possible expression of 'sympathy' for October 7. 'I don't feel like we're isolated, but I do feel like people forget your own country's history' – Britain's fight against Hitler, what we endured and what we had to do to win.
'I was invited to a very beautiful event in Westminster Abbey, celebrating your VE Day, and I was moved by all the historic moments that you remember and cherish from your heroism. But then I'm asking myself why, when Israel stands in fighting a very different version of a very radical ideology, why [the British elite] don't understand it's exactly the time to have patience and resilience – to wait for Israel to really conclude the job, until this terror organisation will be defeated and not to urge Israel all the time to end the war, even if the consequences are to let Hamas control the Gaza Strip.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

US vetoes UN Security Council resolution demanding immediate Gaza ceasefire
US vetoes UN Security Council resolution demanding immediate Gaza ceasefire

Powys County Times

time18 minutes ago

  • Powys County Times

US vetoes UN Security Council resolution demanding immediate Gaza ceasefire

The United States vetoed a UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza because it was not linked to the release of hostages. The resolution before the UN's most powerful body also did not condemn Hamas's deadly attack in Israel on October 7 2023, which ignited the war, or say the militant group must disarm and withdraw from Gaza — two other US demands. The 14 other members of the 15-nation council voted in favour of the resolution, which described the humanitarian situation in Gaza as 'catastrophic' and called on Israel to lift all restrictions on the delivery of aid to the 2.1 million Palestinians in the territory. The US vetoed the last resolution on Gaza in November, under the Biden administration, again because the ceasefire demand was not directly linked to the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages. Similarly, the current resolution demands those taken by Hamas and other groups be released, but it does not make it a condition for a truce. President Donald Trump's administration has tried to ramp up its efforts to broker peace in Gaza after 20 months of war. However, Hamas has sought amendments to a US proposal that special envoy Steve Witkoff has called 'totally unacceptable'.

Charities welcome half a million more children being eligible for free school meals
Charities welcome half a million more children being eligible for free school meals

Sky News

time20 minutes ago

  • Sky News

Charities welcome half a million more children being eligible for free school meals

Charities and school leaders have welcomed free school meals being opened up to more than half a million extra children. The government has announced it will make children in all households on universal credit in England eligible for free school meals from September 2026. Parents will be nearly £500 better off each year because of the change, the Department for Education said. Currently, only pupils from households with an income of less than £7,400 a year are eligible for free school meals, meaning hundreds of thousands of children living in poverty do not have access to them. The latest figures, from January 2024, show 2.1m children were eligible for free school meals - 24.6% of all pupils in England. The government has not said how it will fund another 500,000 children's school meals. It also claimed the eligibility expansion would lift 100,000 children across England completely out of poverty, but did not provide details of how. Charities broadly welcomed the change, with The Children's Society calling it a "practical, compassionate step that will make a real difference". Chief executive Mark Russell said it is a move his charity has been pushing for and would lift thousands of children out of hunger and help ease the pressure on households struggling to make ends meet. The Child Poverty Action Group said it was "fantastic news and a game-changer for children and families". "We hope this is a sign of what's to come in autumn's child poverty strategy, with government taking more action to meet its manifesto commitment to reduce child poverty in the UK," Kate Anstey, head of education policy, said. School leaders' union NAHT welcomed the change but asked for the government to introduce "auto-enrolment so no child entitled to a free meal misses out". NAHT general secretary Paul Whiteman added: "It's vital that this positive extension of free school meals is backed up by other tangible measures which help lift even more children out of poverty when the government's child poverty taskforce reports back later this year." 2:37 At the end of May, the government delayed publishing its child poverty strategy until the autumn over Treasury concerns about the cost implications of ending the two-child limit on universal credit, which is expected to be part of the strategy. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch pushed Sir Keir Starmer on whether he will lift it at Prime Minister's Questions on Wednesday after the PM last week said the government "will look at" scrapping it, in his strongest indication yet that he will. On the free school meals announcement, Sir Keir said: "Working parents across the country are working tirelessly to provide for their families but are being held back by cost-of-living pressures. "My government is taking action to ease those pressures. Feeding more children every day, for free, is one of the biggest interventions we can make to put more money in parents' pockets, tackle the stain of poverty, and set children up to learn. "This expansion is a truly historic moment for our country, helping families who need it most and delivering our Plan for Change to give every child, no matter their background, the same chance to succeed." Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson called it a "giant step" towards ending child poverty.

Labour's plan for illegal migrants explained — and is it working?
Labour's plan for illegal migrants explained — and is it working?

Times

time22 minutes ago

  • Times

Labour's plan for illegal migrants explained — and is it working?

What you need to know Sir Keir Starmer has secured improved commitments from France on tackling small boats but this has yet to translate into action on the ground Labour believes a new bill going through the Lords would make a significant difference in its pledge to 'smash the gangs' Despite rejecting the Rwanda plan as a 'gimmick', the prime minister's plan for return hubs has a similar aim, but is still at an early stage Ministers are looking at tightening the rules around Article 8 of the ECHR, the right to family life, in asylum claims When Sir Keir Starmer entered No 10 almost a year ago he pledged to make good on Labour's election promise to 'smash the gangs' and succeed, where the Conservatives had failed, in securing Britain's borders against illegal migration. Yet so far this year almost 15,000 people have arrived in the UK in small boats — up 42 per cent on this time last year and a 95 per cent rise from the same point in 2023. This week ministers sought to blame the weather and insisted that their policies would be effective in making good on Starmer's pledge. But what exactly is the government doing, and how successful has it been? A new deal with France From the British side perhaps the most critical element of the government's small boats strategy has been to leverage Starmer's relationship with President Macron to persuade the French to take a more proactive approach to preventing small boats setting sail from French waters in the first place. At the start of the year the prime minister hosted Macron at Chequers, where the two leaders agreed to step up bilateral co-operation to prevent Channel crossings. This led to a formal agreement a month later under which the UK extended a £480 million deal to pay for policing French beaches in return for new measures to stem the flow of boats. In particular, Paris agreed to change the law to allow police officers to apprehend vessels in shallow waters and restore the offence of an 'illegal stay' in France, which would allow the police to arrest migrants and smugglers before they attempted a crossing. There was also a commitment by France to speed up the construction of a detention centre in Dunkirk — paid for by the British — which had become bogged down in planning rows. But, so far, these commitments have yet to materialise. The plan to enable police to intervene within 300m of the shore is yet to be implemented amid opposition from the officers themselves. There is also still slow progress on Dunkirk. Verdict: Ministers believe improved co-operation with France is as close as it comes to a silver bullet to stem the flow of boats. But while Starmer has won important commitments from Paris, which were never given to the last government, these commitments have yet to materialise into action on the ground. New legal powers to tackle smuggling gangs In January ministers published a bill that they claimed would give police anti-terrorism-style powers to 'identify, disrupt and prevent' organised immigration crime. The Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, which is going through the House of Lords, will make it illegal to handle items suspected of being used for organised immigration crime, such as boat parts and engines, with a maximum punishment of 14 years in prison. Those found collecting information that could be used by people smugglers will face up to five years in jail. This would include researching routes or vessels online, or arranging departure points, dates and times. The new offences will be accompanied by additional powers for Border Force officers, police and the National Crime Agency. They will be allowed to seize and search the mobile phones of anyone arriving in the UK illegally if they believe it will help an investigation into who organised the journey. The information gathered will also be available to be used in cases brought overseas. Verdict: Senior policing figures believe the legislation will make a difference in their ability to dismantle the smuggling gangs — pointing out that the numbers involved are in the hundreds — and are vulnerable to a concerted attempt to dismantle their activities. However, as the bill is not yet law, at the moment it remains an aspiration. Return hubs In one of his first acts as prime minister Starmer scrapped the Conservative Party's plans to send migrants to Rwanda, branding it a waste of money and a 'gimmick'. However, he is now drawing up a policy that sounds remarkably similar — sending failed asylum seekers to 'return hubs' in the west Balkans. There is one significant difference: the Tories planned to send all those who came to the UK on small boats abroad, while Labour's plan is limited to those who have exhausted all avenues of appeal. But the intent is similar: to deter people from making the crossings in the first place. Verdict: The plans are at a very early stage, and it is not a given that countries will agree to host the return hubs. Albania has already ruled out doing so. There remain significant legal and political challenges to getting the scheme off the ground. There is broader support for the idea among some EU states and also in the UN. But even if the plans get off the ground, there is no guarantee it will work as a deterrent. Deal with other countries In December Starmer negotiated a deal with Germany, which agreed to tighten its laws to make it easier to prosecute those helping to smuggle migrants to the UK. Ministers said this was important because facilitating people-smuggling to a third country was not technically illegal in Germany. However, the law has not yet been enacted, and ministers need to win approval from the new German government for it to be put into place. Starmer has also recently announced a partnership with Albania, Kosovo and North Macedonia to detect and deter illegal migration operations. Verdict: The prime minister has made improving international co-operation to tackle smuggling gangs a big diplomatic priority for the government. But while the issue is a huge priority for the UK it is less important for other countries, and it remains to be seen how quickly and effectively diplomatic deals are converted into concrete action. The asylum backlog and hotels There are 8,000 more asylum seekers living in hotels than when Starmer pledged during the election campaign in June last year to 'end asylum hotels, saving the taxpayer billions of pounds'. The reality of how difficult that is has become clear. This month the National Audit Office said the cost of asylum accommodation would be three times higher than previously estimated and more than 38,000 migrants are being housed in hotels, costing the Home Office an estimated £5.5 million a day — while a further 66,000 migrants are in dispersal accommodation such as large houses, bedsits and flats across different local authorities. • Migrants will be put up in hotels for years yet, Treasury admits The vast majority are awaiting asylum decisions, so speeding up that process is seen as key. The Home Office has had some success — it has been increased by 52 per cent and 24,000 people have been removed from the country. Yvette Cooper, the home secretary, is also planning to change the law to introduce a mandatory 24-week legal deadline for all asylum appeals. Verdict: If decision-making can genuinely be sped up it will help not only to bring down the hotel bill, but could act as a deterrent for those considering making the journey across the Channel. Human rights laws Ministers will bring in a new framework for judges to work to when deciding whether to allow migrants to make claims for asylum using the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). The most heavily used part of the ECHR, Article 8 — the right to family life — has been leveraged by murderers and paedophiles to stay in the country. Cooper revealed this week about 30 per cent of cases had been considered 'exceptional' by judges, and she wants to restrict that to a more narrow set of circumstances. • Kemi Badenoch would override ECHR on asylum for illegal migrants Verdict: Restricting the scope of Article 8 will save ministers from some embarrassing headlines but is unlikely to be enough on its own to fulfil the government's immigration pledges. An appetite to direct judges — and suggestions that the government could be open to reforming the ECHR — shows a willingness from Starmer and Cooper to step into an arena previously inhabited by the Tories and Reform UK. But as those on the right ramp up pressure for Britain to pull out of the convention altogether, the efforts may fall short.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store