Britain has been accused of cowering in the face of Donald Trump after becoming involved in a second row in 24 hours with European leaders over the future of the Middle East peace process.



The foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, with support from Estonia and Hungary, blocked an EU foreign ministers’ statement on how the EU could support the process, it emerged on Monday.



The latest move came after the UK rejected the conclusions of a Middle East peace conference staged by France in Paris on Sunday. In blunt language, the UK dismissed the conference as ill-advised because of the absence of the Israelis and Palestinians, as well as the imminent inauguration of Trump.

While more than 70 countries attended the Paris conference, with roughly 30 at foreign secretary level, the UK refused to send a minister or ambassador and was the only major EU country to attend only in observer status. It also refused to sign the ensuing communique.

The EU foreign ministers’ text would have welcomed the results of the Paris conference and set out the potential incentives that the EU could provide if the two sides managed to restart talks. The statement would have pledged “an unprecedented package of political, economic and security support to be offered to both parties” in the event of a peace deal, bolstering earlier EU statements.

But the statement was shelved as the UK and other opposing countries thought the statement was mistimed just four days before the new US president took office. The UK argued that the statement risked hardening positions without helping to solve the conflict.

Other countries saw the British stance as a concession to Trump, who has worried Middle East experts with a plan to move the US embassy to Jerusalem.

One European diplomat said the UK had changed 20 years of policy in the hope of a good relationship with Trump’s administration, adding: “How many more concessions are we to expect?”

Until recently, Britain has been a strong supporter of a negotiated two-state solution, but it appears concerns about the attitude of the Trump administration has led the UK to modify its approach, if not yet its policy stance.

Another EU diplomat said the British in Brussels were motivated primarily by a need to cosy up to Trump. “The Brits read what Trump said and implemented it immediately,” they said.

“It’s madness. Just three weeks ago the Brits pushed for UN security council resolution 2334 on the settlements and voted for it, and now they’re blocking resolutions on the matter at the foreign affairs council. With all due respect to the British, you can’t run foreign policy according to someone’s tweets.”

In an interview with the Times and Bild, Trump urged the UK to veto any further resolutions on Israel at the security council. The president-elect vented his anger at the failure of the Obama administration to veto a UN security council resolution in December that condemned illegal Israeli settlements as a threat to a two-state solution. The resolution also called for a differentiation between products produced in Israel and those produced in the occupied territories.

In the interview Trump would not be drawn on the plan to move the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

On Monday, UK diplomats suggested the latest row in Brussels had been caused by EU officials presenting conclusions on the Middle East that had not been circulated in advance. The UK officials claimed the discussion was supposed to be a brainstorming exercise.

Federica Mogherini, the EU’s foreign policy chief, tried to play down the row, saying she did not rule out the EU being able to agree a Middle East statement at a later stage, “when things are a little more mature on the side of the US administration, which for the moment is not yet clear”.

It was pointed out that the Paris statement had been considerably softened from the original French text. The final statement made no mention of the 4 June 1967 lines as a basis for negotiations, nor did it urge participating countries to distinguish, in all their actions, between Israel and the settlements.

The clause urging Israeli and Palestinian leaders to dissociate themselves from opponents of two states was also softened; the draft had demanded that they “disavow official voices on their side that reject this solution”.