For decades, British governments have verbally condemned the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but their warnings have not been backed by substantive measures. According to an analysis by The Guardian, Ed Miliband is now attempting to put an end to this policy of inaction, by turning standard statements into substantive sanctions and adopting a clearly different stance toward the Israeli occupation.
In the past, as the newspaper notes, several British ministers had expressed “concern” about the expansion of Israeli settlements, reiterating that they constitute an obstacle to the two-state solution. Their statements, however, rarely translated into action. Even former Conservative ministers, such as Alan Duncan and Alistair Burt, had criticized this policy, with the former describing it as weak and naive and the latter commenting on the ability of British diplomacy to constantly invent new ways of condemning the situation without taking concrete measures.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Canadian Anne Carson Wins the Nobel Prize in Literature
A Look Back at Apollon’s International Soccer Players
Margaret Thatcher, who, as prime minister, was torn between her natural sympathy for Israel and her fear that the Gulf states might fall under Soviet influence, had also expressed her outrage at the expansion of the settlements. However, in the face of Israel’s disillusionment with the two-state solution—which Britain had supported at the United Nations as early as 1946, if not sooner — London never took significant steps to prevent the spread of illegal settlements.
The trade agreement between Britain–Israel trade agreement stipulated that products originating from territories placed under Israeli administration after June 1967 would not benefit from reduced tariffs. At the same time, the Ministry of Business advised companies not to conduct business with the settlements. However, many companies ignored the guidelines or, in order to secure preferential treatment, relabeled their products as originating in Israel.
The British Secretary of State for Trade had told the relevant parliamentary committee last June that it was extremely difficult to verify the origin of products with certainty. At the same time, the legal opinion was that the British sanctions regime could impose measures only on entities linked to settler violence, but could not impose sanctions on a contractor simply because they were working in settlements.
From statements of concern to actual sanctions
Ed Miliband inherited this difficult moral and legal landscape when he became Foreign Secretary. From the very moment he took office, he stated that he refused to remain a mere spectator in the face of further human suffering and the destruction of the two-state solution caused by the expansion of settlements. In this stance, he had the support of Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
Above all, Miliband believed that Britain could no longer pretend to be powerless. Appearing weak or limiting itself to symbolic statements without action would prove disastrous even for Israel’s own future. He was perhaps the only leading Labour politician who could advance this argument so quickly, overcoming the inertia and caution that had become ingrained in the Foreign Office’s legal advice.
His Jewish heritage—his mother, Marion Kozak, was a Holocaust survivor who fled to Israel— his upbringing amid the Palestinian issue, and his sensitivity toward those who suffer from anti-Semitism, gave him, according to The Guardian, an almost unassailable position from which to assume the role of Israel’s “critical friend.”
The U.S. ambassador to Israel, Mike Hakabi, accused the British government this week of anti-Semitism—a charge he also leveled at Miliband, knowing his Jewish heritage— but the British minister’s response is simple: the best path to Israel’s security lies through Palestinian self-determination and the implementation of the two-state solution in its fullest form.
Equating Israel exclusively with the current government of Benjamin Netanyahu—as many Conservative politicians have often done—is, according to Miliband, a flawed approach. “To hold Jews responsible for the actions of the Israeli government is anti-Semitism, plain and simple,” he has stated.
Thus, Miliband became the first British foreign minister to describe what is happening in the West Bank as “ethnic cleansing” and, in doing so, effectively accused Israel of condoning acts that may constitute war crimes.
At the same time, he put an end to Britain’s two-year delay in responding to the advisory opinion issued by the International Court of Justice in The Hague in June 2024, according to which the occupation is illegal. In a statement described as a belated acknowledgment of reality, it accepted the International Court of Justice’s position that it is not only the construction of settlements that is illegal, but the occupation itself.
According to The Guardian, acceptance of this advisory opinion creates stronger obligations for the British government not to provide financial support for the occupation. This may explain why the ban on commercial transactions has been extended to include services such as insurance for activities linked to the illegal settlements.
Milliband’s greatest diplomatic success was the agreement with France and Canada to impose similar trade bans. France had taken the lead last year in recognizing the State of Palestine. This year, according to The Guardian, it was Britain’s turn to lead the effort to implement the consequences of that recognition.
Paris appears to have been persuaded by London to stop waiting for a collective European decision, as it seemed unlikely that an agreement could be reached due to Germany’s opposition and indifference within parts of the European Commission.
The Weaknesses of the New Policy and the Risk
A group of countries jointly imposing trade restrictions certainly complicates any potential Israeli response and reinforces the image of Israel’s international isolation.
The weaknesses of the new policy are, however, evident, according to the British newspaper’s analysis. Miliband continues to leave it up to international courts to decide whether genocide has been committed in Gaza, a process that could take at least five years to complete.
At the same time, there is no commitment to protect the International Court of Justice in The Hague or the International Criminal Court from U.S. pressure seeking to restrict their operations.
As for the ban on arms sales to Israel, an exception remains in place for F-35 fighter jet components destined for the main U.S. spare parts depot, on the grounds that the F-35s “do not substantially support the occupation.”
Miliband also explicitly condemned the BDS movement (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions) because it targets the entire Israeli economy and not just the occupied territories.
The secondary legislation required for the full implementation of sanctions could take up to nine months, in contrast to the speed with which sanctions were imposed on Russia following the annexation of Crimea.
However, focusing solely on what has not been done means missing the significance of the moment. Alan Duncan stated: “At long last, in the face of state-sponsored terrorism by illegal settlers, the British government has shown unprecedented moral courage.”
There is a risk of a chain reaction from the White House. But Donald Trump, caught in a political maelstrom following his decision to attack Iran, has little reason to rush to Benjamin Netanyahu’s aid.
Miliband took a risk. But with more than 70,000 dead in Gaza and the two-state solution hanging by a thread, perhaps, as the Guardian concludes, the time has come for someone to take a bold step.
