Prime Minister Theresa May delivered a moving speech to the Conservative Friends of Israel last month, praising the “true friendship” between her country and the Jewish state. Yet only a few weeks later the United Kingdom lent its support to the UN resolution condemning Israeli “settlements” in the West Bank and Jerusalem—whose wording, it seems, British diplomats helped to craft. Douglas Murray, rather than seeing pure contradiction between May’s words and the actions of her diplomats, finds a common thread in two “discordant notes” in the speech itself. The first was an awkward attempt to balance complaints about anti-Semitism with others about “Islamophobia.” As for the second:

[It] came when she mentioned Israeli settlement building. It was carefully placed in the speech, after a passage in which May congratulated her own Department for International Development Minister, Priti Patel. In the days [prior], Patel had announced . . . an investigation to determine whether British taxpayer money being sent to what May called “the Occupied Palestinian Territories” was being used to fund salaries for Palestinians convicted of terrorism offenses against Israelis. Following this, May said: “When talking about global obligations, we must be honest with our friends, like Israel, because that is what true friendship is about. That is why we have been clear about building new, illegal settlements: it is wrong; it is not conducive to peace; and it must stop.” . . .

[H]aving lavished praise on Israel, a castigation apparently seemed necessary. It is wrong, but hardly possible for a British prime minister currently to do otherwise. If there are terrorists receiving funds from British taxpayers thanks to the largesse of the UK government, then this may—after many years of campaigning by anti-terrorism organizations—finally be “investigated.” However, throughout any such investigation, the British government, while saying that it remains committed to a peace deal that comes as a result of direct negotiations between the two sides, has for years announced its own preconditions for peace: a freeze on the building of what it calls “settlements.” . . .

At the same time as the prime minister was talking about “true friendship” in front of friends of Israel, her government was conspiring with the outgoing Obama administration to kick that friend in the back. . . . The most obvious [response] is simply a reflection that friends do not kick friends in the back.

Considering the current state of Israel-Arab relations, Ghaith al-Omari writes

First and foremost, no ceasefire will be possible without the release of Israeli hostages and commitments to disarm Hamas and remove it from power. The final say on these matters rests with Hamas commanders on the ground in Gaza, who have been largely impervious to foreign pressure so far. At minimum, however, the United States should insist that Qatari and Egyptian mediators push Hamas’s external leadership to accept these conditions publicly, which could increase pressure on the group’s Gaza leadership.

Washington should also demand a clear, public position from key Arab states regarding disarmament. The Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas endorsed this position in a June letter to Saudi Arabia and France, giving Arab states Palestinian cover for endorsing it themselves.

Some Arab states have already indicated a willingness to play a significant role, but they will have little incentive to commit resources and personnel to Gaza unless Israel (1) provides guarantees that it will not occupy the Strip indefinitely, and (2) removes its veto on a PA role in Gaza’s future, even if only symbolic at first. Arab officials are also seeking assurances that any role they play in Gaza will be in the context of a wider effort to reach a two-state solution.

On the other hand, Washington must remain mindful that current conditions between Israel and the Palestinians are not remotely conducive to . . . implementing a two-state solution.