Britain's historical mandate: A frank recognition of its past in the Middle East can give Britain a unique role in the peace process

A frank recognition of its past in the Middle East can give Britain a unique role in the peace process

The reprimand of Israel by David Miliband, the foreign secretary, resonated sharply in an already difficult week for Israel. But Britain can do more to influence the Middle East than register a complaint, expel a Mossad officer, or sit on the sidelines as Washington pursues its Sisyphean efforts to renew the peace process.

Of all the western powers it is Britain that has a unique responsibility to Israelis and Palestinians, and something unique to offer both parties. After all, Britain was the original third party to the Palestine triangle. From the beginning of the British Mandate in 1922 to their great escape from Palestine in 1948, it was the British who lived in suffocating proximity to the parties – an intimacy that neither the US nor any other nation has experienced.

It was the British who were present at the birth of the clash between the Zionists and the Arabs of Palestine, and witnessed the conflict unfold. Britain was the first European power to be presented with each party's litany of demands, and to be at the receiving end of their threats and manipulations. It was the first that each side relied upon to fulfil its aspirations, and that each accused of betrayal. And it was the first to express exasperation at what it saw as both parties' insufferable behaviour.

Indeed, Britain was not simply a bystander. Having made promises to each side during the first world war, enshrined its incompatible "dual obligations" in the Balfour declaration of 1917, and implemented contradictory policies for some 30 years, it shared responsibility for the conflict's shape and evolution.

A decision to openly address Britain's role could have an impact on the most unbridgeable gap between Palestinians and Israelis: the question of ultimate responsibility for the conflict.