The convergence of Donald Trump’s transactional approach to foreign policy with Benjamin Netanyahu’s embattled leadership has created a volatile mix in the Middle East. Both leaders share a disdain for multilateral frameworks, preferring unilateral action and personal diplomacy. This combination, as veteran BBC correspondent Jeremy Bowen has noted, risks entrenching a state of ‘permacrisis’ in the region: an endless cycle of confrontation with no clear exit strategy. In contrast, British diplomacy, with its emphasis on institutional process and soft power, offers a template for stability that neither Washington nor Jerusalem currently appear willing to pursue.
Trump’s presidency has been marked by a series of dramatic departures from established US policy. The recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, the relocation of the US embassy, and the withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal have all been welcomed by Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition. But these moves have also alienated key European allies and undermined the two-state solution, which has been the bedrock of international consensus on Israeli-Palestinian peace. The Trump administration has simultaneously cut aid to the Palestinians and closed the PLO’s office in Washington, signalling that it no longer sees the Palestinian Authority as a legitimate partner.
Netanyahu, facing a corruption trial and a fractious coalition, has little incentive to pursue meaningful negotiations. His political survival depends on maintaining the support of settler parties and religious nationalists who oppose Palestinian statehood. The annexation of parts of the West Bank, a key campaign promise, remains a live possibility. Such a move would be a direct violation of international law and would likely trigger a response from the International Criminal Court. It would also further isolate Israel in diplomatic forums, making a mockery of the peace process.
Against this backdrop, British diplomacy has sought to maintain a bridge between the parties. Foreign Office officials have repeatedly stressed the UK’s commitment to a negotiated two-state solution, and have offered to facilitate dialogue. The British government has also been active in the Quartet, alongside the UN, the EU, and Russia, urging restraint and a return to talks. However, the current political climate makes it difficult for Britain to exert influence. The Trump administration has sidelined the Quartet, preferring bilateral channels with the Israelis and the Saudis. And Netanyahu has shown little interest in British mediation.
Yet there are signs that some Israeli officials recognise the value of a European counterweight to American unilateralism. The UK’s careful calibration of criticism, combined with its support for Israel’s security, means it retains credibility on both sides of the conflict. British diplomats have been quietly working behind the scenes to prevent an explosive escalation, particularly in Gaza. They have also sought to convince the US administration that abandoning the two-state solution will lead to increased instability, not just in the occupied territories but across the region.
The risk of permacrisis, as Bowen describes it, is that the current trajectory becomes self-reinforcing. Each unilateral move by either side triggers a response, deepening mistrust and making compromise harder. The vacuum left by American disengagement from the peace process is being filled by spoilers: Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iranian-backed militias. Without a credible diplomatic alternative, the region could slide into a new war, perhaps even more destructive than previous conflicts.
British diplomacy, with its long view and institutional memory, offers a way out of this trap. It advocates for a return to international law, the strengthening of Palestinian institutions, and the creation of incentives for both sides to stay engaged. But for that to work, the UK needs Washington and Jerusalem to be open to persuasion. At present, there is little evidence that either is listening.
The coming months will be decisive. If Netanyahu proceeds with annexation, the full-scale diplomatic war with Europe that has so far been avoided may become inevitable. And if Trump continues to back Israeli unilateralism without any restraint, the US will find itself isolated even among its traditional allies. In that scenario, British diplomacy may be the last credible avenue for stability in a region that risks sinking into permanent crisis.
