Paul Adams: British-Israeli relations at lowest ebb in decades

Britain bore the brunt of Israel’s initial, visceral anger, a testament to London’s historical role in regional diplomacy and its perceived leadership in this new multilateral initiative. However, the fact that twelve countries, including major European powers and Canada, chose to act in unison clearly amplified Israel’s sense of outrage, transforming a bilateral diplomatic friction into a broader international challenge. Officials in London, while anticipating a negative reaction, appeared genuinely taken aback by the sheer speed and ferocity of Israel’s retort, suggesting a miscalculation in the anticipated diplomatic fallout.

The immediate retaliatory measures taken by Israel were undeniably hostile and symbolically potent. The closure of the UK’s consulate in East Jerusalem, an institution vital for its engagement with the West Bank and direct communication with the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, represents a significant severing of diplomatic ties. Furthermore, the removal of British representatives from the International Gaza Support Centre, a body established to coordinate crucial stabilization and relief efforts in the Gaza Strip, signals a deep-seated Israeli distrust and a desire to isolate the UK from ongoing humanitarian initiatives. These actions unequivocally demonstrate that Israel is deeply troubled by the collective stance adopted by the UK and its eleven partners, which include prominent nations such as France, Spain, and Canada.

While products manufactured in Israeli settlements may not constitute a substantial percentage of Israel’s overall export economy, the political symbolism of singling them out for special treatment carries immense weight. For decades, successive British governments, along with many other international powers, have acknowledged the illegality of settlements in occupied Palestinian territory under international law. However, these governments consistently stopped short of implementing concrete measures, such as trade bans, on products originating from these settlements.

This new policy marks a significant departure. Britain has now explicitly aligned itself with the International Court of Justice’s 2024 ruling, which declared the entire occupation, including Israel’s military presence, to be unlawful. Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband articulated a clear rationale: Britain’s economic relationships must now reflect this fundamental legal and political stance. Consequently, the ban extends beyond mere products to encompass companies that provide construction, infrastructure, or financial services to settlements. The measures also include restrictions on arms sales that "materially contribute to the occupation," a scope that exceeded the expectations of many observers and signaled a more robust and comprehensive approach than anticipated.

Beyond the substance of the policy shift, the language employed by Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband was equally striking. His statement, described as heartfelt and at times deeply personal, resonated with an unusual level of directness and candom. As a "proud British Jew… unwavering in my support for the state of Israel," Miliband spoke with a clarity and starkness rarely heard from a British foreign secretary on this issue. His forthright condemnation of "settler terrorism" as "rampant" and its role in the "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians in parts of the West Bank, coupled with his assertion that the Israeli government had "turned a blind eye to this," was truly remarkable. Miliband himself characterized this as a "reset" in British policy, a term that, in its implications, felt more like a radical and fundamental rethink of decades of diplomatic engagement. This profound shift in approach leaves British-Israeli relations at their lowest ebb for many years.

The heated and often febrile atmosphere that invariably accompanies an impending Israeli election undoubtedly contributed to the brutal response from Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar. However, it is crucial to recognize that this sentiment of outrage is shared by a significant portion of the Israeli populace. While many Israelis find the violent and messianic ideology espoused by some settlers deeply problematic, viewing them at times as a national embarrassment, this internal discomfort does not automatically translate into an agreement that settlements, established on land captured during the 1967 Six-Day War, are illegal.

Indeed, many Israelis would likely disagree vehemently with former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who last year accused his successor, Benjamin Netanyahu, of transforming Israel into an international pariah. Nevertheless, a palpable sense of anxiety and defensiveness is growing within Israel as the walls of international opprobrium appear to be closing in. This is evidenced by protests at international events like Eurovision, the issuance of international arrest warrants against Israeli leaders, and now, the imposition of bans on settlement products. This growing international isolation fuels a defensive posture and intensifies existing anxieties.

For the Palestinians, however, this development is being viewed as a significant step forward. The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs has commended the countries adopting sanctions, while simultaneously calling for "urgent, concrete measures" to halt Israel’s "illegal settlement enterprise." In London, Palestinian Ambassador Dr. Husam Zomlot hailed the British government’s decision as "a turning point in the UK-Palestine relationship." He expressed his belief that Britain’s "courageous steps" would help pave the way for the eventual independence of the State of Palestine, based on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Yet, Ambassador Zomlot is keenly aware that the harsh reality of Israel’s fifty-nine-year occupation has not ended, nor has it substantially changed as a direct result of this policy shift. The prospects for a viable and independent Palestinian state remain vanishingly small, and there is little immediate indication that the concerted action by twelve countries will reverse Israel’s seemingly inexorable process of territorial expansion and control in the West Bank.

The United States, by virtue of its immense influence and its unique relationship with Israel, holds the primary leverage to effect significant change, should it choose to exercise it. This was demonstrated in 1991 when President George H.W. Bush and his determined Secretary of State, James Baker, threatened to withhold $10 billion in loan guarantees from the Israeli government under Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir. Shamir, known for his steadfastness, had refused to commit that the funds would not be used to finance settlement activity in the occupied territories. However, the current political climate, particularly under former President Donald Trump, has shown no inclination to curb Benjamin Netanyahu’s settlement ambitions. While certain factions within Trump’s "MAGA" movement have shifted their stance on Israel in recent years, the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, is a fervent Christian Zionist who largely shares Israel’s perspective, viewing the West Bank as divinely promised to the Jewish people. Therefore, Tuesday’s decisive action by the UK and its partners places them not only in direct opposition to Israel but also against Israel’s principal backer in Washington, underscoring the profound geopolitical implications of this historic policy divergence.