Three days in Tashkent: Negotiating a two-state Israel-Palestine resolution
7 min read
SNP MP for Dundee Central Chris Law recently travelled to Uzbekistan to help negotiate a resolution on a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine. His diary details how compromise was finally reached
The situation in Gaza is difficult for the western mind to comprehend. Israeli air strikes continue to bombard the area. Israel has only partially lifted an 11-week blockade of all food and other humanitarian supplies into Gaza. Having returned to northern Gaza after a brief Israeli-Hamas ceasefire, Gazans now face the prospect of another Israeli ground offensive.
Amid this suffering, a gathering of parliamentarians from the world over coming together to find a solution to the crisis may seem irrelevant – absurd, even.
A little over a month ago, at the 150th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly in Tashkent, Uzbekistan, I found myself immersed in one of the most complex and emotionally charged debates of our time: negotiating a resolution on a two-state solution for Israel and Palestine under the Committee on Peace and International Security.
What followed was an extraordinary three days of debate, frayed nerves and chaotic disagreements – which ultimately led to an extraordinary act of compromise.
Sunday: Baptism by fire
Volunteering for the Peace and Security Committee seemed like a sound idea – until I learned we’d be handling a resolution on Palestine. What awaited was a daunting challenge: with 156 amendments submitted by parliaments around the world, each reflecting political scars and priorities.
The committee traditionally adopts resolutions through line-by-line drafting – an exhausting process familiar to many parliamentarians and multilateral officials. This was never going to be straightforward – and it wasn’t.
By 9.30am, over 50 countries had assembled. I made my intervention early, noting – speaking on my own behalf, not the government’s – that it was regrettable the UK still hadn’t recognised Palestine, unlike more than 140 other states, including the Scottish parliament and government. My remarks were well-received – others were not.
Israel’s delegation defended their amendments fiercely – not to unify, but to fracture. Some of our 12+ group supported them; I abstained. The Arab Group and much of the Global South opposed them, and the amendment failed. The response was explosive: one Israeli MP accused the room of sympathising with terrorists. Chaos followed.
The Algerian rapporteur stormed out, flipping the finger at the Israeli bench. More walkouts ensued. A few 12+ delegations simply left. By 6pm, we had only reached amendment 110. The atmosphere was raw; the tone combative.
Monday: Fractures and flickers of progress
I entered Monday with hope and resolve. Key UK amendments were up, some softened following advice from the Foreign Office. One stood out: removing “starvation as a weapon of war”. Given the Gaza crisis, I opposed this, and thankfully, it was rejected, maintaining the original wording.
Amid the hostility, dialogue began. I started working closely with the Palestinian delegate. Our exchanges were firm but respectful. We redrafted sections together and, surprisingly, found common ground.
Still, divisive tactics persisted. Russia’s push to delete “territorial integrity” – a transparent reference to Ukraine – was a troubling move. I called it out; abandon that, and we undermine the legal basis for opposing illegal settlements. Yet the deletion passed.
Meanwhile, Italy’s amendments were being reworked by others – without Italy present. Palestine negotiated on their behalf. The resolution now leaned heavily toward Arab preferences, raising quiet concerns among our 12+ colleagues about balance.
By the day’s end, all amendments had been addressed. But the room remained deeply divided. Some delegations, including our own, debated whether to back the text or push for a redraft – a six-month delay. Stakes were escalating.
Tuesday: From imminent collapse to relieved consensus
The final day began poorly; I forgot my badge twice. Inside, the room was tense. Delegates faced three unpalatable options: accept the current draft with its contentious amendments, reject it altogether, or refer it back for redrafting – likely stalling the process indefinitely. No path was ideal. The IPU operates via dialogue, not paralysis.
Powerful speeches followed. A Bosnian MP moved many to tears recounting her wartime childhood. South Africa condemned the rising civilian toll in Gaza. A sense of urgency began to build.
I took the floor – which, with clamouring and protesting, can often resemble PMQs – thanking those who crafted the draft and those who endured the last three gruelling days. I appealed for unity, urging us not to let division ruin the chance for progress. New Zealand followed, cautiously supporting deferral – though even that felt inadequate.
Then, the unexpected breakthrough. During a chaotic shouting match, Pakistan relayed a suggestion from the Palestinian delegate: revert to the original draft and strip out all 156 amendments.
At first, it drew shrugs. But then we broke for consultations. Outside, under clear Uzbek skies, the 12+ group gathered on a lawn. Breaks in these proceedings are unusual, but we needed to reassess our position and avoid blindly walking into an unintended outcome. The idea – radical just hours earlier – began to gain traction.
Back inside, Belgium and Switzerland put the offer forward. To our surprise, the Arab Group supported it. Chile volunteered to liaise with Latin America, while Pakistan reached out to Asia. I was asked to shore up support among the 12+ group.
Then came a final ask: would the 12+ give a written guarantee of support? Some hesitated, suggesting trust alone should be enough. I stepped in and personally assured Palestine our group would support the final vote.
There was no time for formal lobbying. But momentum was gathering.
Back in the chamber, I was surrounded by delegates from every region. One by one, the six political group leaders stood to speak. And to my relief, consensus emerged. A vote was called.
What happened next was something I’ll never forget. In a rare and moving moment, delegates stood to vote, with country nameplates raised. Some in tears while others cheered. For a process marked by anger and division, it was a remarkable and unifying conclusion.
As the British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union (BGIPU) director Rick Nimmo observed, in his four decades in diplomacy he had never seen anything quite like it. Consensus votes usually end with polite clapping. This one ended with hugs, raucous applause and an overwhelming sense of relief.
Wednesday: Resolution adopted
The next morning, in the full Assembly, the resolution was adopted again – this time by formal consensus. Only five countries – Iran, Germany, Hungary, Switzerland, and Austria – entered reservations.
The resolution called for:
• An immediate ceasefire in Gaza
• The lifting of the blockade
• The release of all hostages
• Unhindered humanitarian access
• Compliance with international law and support for a two-state solution
It also reaffirmed the critical role of parliaments in promoting peace and justice, urging legislative action to support recognition of both Israel and Palestine as independent states.
Final reflections
This experience reinforced what I’ve always believed: parliamentary diplomacy matters. When formal diplomacy falters, parliaments can break the deadlock. We reflect our peoples’ voices. We can chart a course where governments dare not tread.
This was a masterclass in why compromise is strength, not weakness. It’s forged not in fury, but in understanding. Not in conquest, but in cooperation.
In a world weary of division, this Assembly showed that peace is still possible – even if only for a moment – when we listen, trust, and take responsibility.
Through the BGIPU, I have had the privilege to represent the UK Parliament in vital conversations on global issues at a number of IPU Assemblies in recent years. None have been more urgent or emotionally resonant than this.
About BGIPU and the IPU
The British Group Inter-Parliamentary Union (BGIPU) is a fully funded arms-length body of the UK Parliament, representing the UK in the IPU, the world’s oldest multilateral political organisation.
Founded in 1889, the IPU now brings together 181 national parliaments to promote peace, democracy, and international cooperation. It works closely with the United Nations and other multilateral bodies.
The 12+ is a 47-member ‘European and Others’ geopolitical group of the IPU. It broadly resembles the Western European and Others Group at the United Nations, but also includes most Eastern European parliaments.
