You can read our statement here.
Q&A on today’s UK government announcement
- Will a settlement trade ban make any difference?
We need to be realistic about what kind of difference we expect to see. Today’s announcement marks a clear change in approach to the conflict – it’s a significant step, but it’s far from being the end of the road.
For decades, the international community has opposed settlements while imposing few practical consequences for their continued expansion. If the UK does not recognise settlements as part of Israel and believes their expansion is damaging to a future Palestinian state, it should not continue to economically support them, and it should target those who benefit from settlement expansion and Palestinian displacement.
The direct impact of a UK actions alone may be limited, but the UK is not acting in isolation, rather as part of a global community. And as we have seen over the past year, when one country takes action, it is often the case that more follow suit.
This global shift should be seen as an indication of how many lines have been crossed and how drastically the reality on the ground has changed.
Thus, a settlement trade ban should not be judged by whether it can resolve the issue, but a shift in approach to draw a clear line between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, and to demonstrate a serious commitment to a political resolution. Statements of concern have failed to prevent settlement expansion, displacement and developments such as E1.
- Won’t a settlement trade ban harm Palestinians?
The UK already has separate trade arrangements with Israel and the Palestinian Authority and differentiates between Israeli settlements and Palestinian businesses in the West Bank. A ban on settlement trade targets Israeli settlement activity, not the entire West Bank.
Policies targeting the settlements should be accompanied by measures to protect and strengthen Palestinian businesses, trade and economic independence – with a focus on preventing the collapse of the Palestinian Authority.
- Will sanctions and a settlement trade ban increase antisemitism in Britain?
Concerns about rising antisemitism shouldn’t be dismissed nor minimised; antisemitism is growing and there is a clear link between the Israeli Palestinian conflict and the subsequent rise of antisemitism globally. Jewish people and communities too often face hostility or are held responsible for the actions of an Israeli government over which they have no control.
Criticism of Israel and targeted measures are not anti-Jewish, nor are they anti-Israel. The measures being proposed are an extension of UK policy, shifting from words and warnings into actions. They are a direct response to occupation and breaches of human rights. That’s why so many British Jews have spoken in favour of this step – many in the Jewish community are extremely concerned when they see what’s happening in the region.
The British government has been right to engage with Jewish community leaders and is right to continue doing so, as well as making a clear distinction between Jewish communities, the State of Israel or the Israeli government.
There’s no conflict of interest here. Tackling antisemitism and policies targeting settlement expansion aren’t in contradiction, and we must be careful in suggesting they are – precisely because the Jewish community isn’t to be held accountable for the actions of the state of Israel.
- Is this singling out Israel because it is the world’s only Jewish state?
Sanctions are a legitimate and widely used tool of British foreign policy. The UK currently operates sanctions regimes relating to countries across the world, including Russia, Iran, Myanmar, Belarus and Sudan, as well as global sanctions regimes targeting serious human rights abuses and corruption.
Israel shouldn’t be held to a different standard as a Jewish state, and as such shouldn’t be exempt from scrutiny or targeted measures.
British government policy focusing on the settlements and the occupation do not target Israel as a whole. Alongside most of the international community, the UK does not recognise the occupied Palestinian territories as part of Israel, and settlement goods are already treated differently from goods originating within Israel.
The UK should be challenged when it fails to uphold international law or human rights consistently. But where double standards exist, the answer should be greater consistency, not immunity for Israel.
- Many settlements are expected to become part of Israel in a future peace agreement, so they shouldn’t be targeted. Would a trade ban predetermine Israel’s borders?
A negotiated two-state agreement is expected to involve mutually agreed land swaps, with some settlements likely to end up on the Israeli side of an agreed border. At the point at which that happens, the UK and the rest of the international community have been clear that they would recognise these new agreed borders.
Until Israelis and Palestinians reach an agreement, the UK doesn’t recognise Israeli sovereignty over territory occupied in 1967. A settlement trade ban therefore does not determine a future border; it reflects the status of that territory now.
Treating settlements as already part of Israel risks predetermining the outcome before Israelis and Palestinians have agreed to negotiate.
This is particularly important on the issue of E1. Whatever the eventual status of Ma’ale Adumim in a negotiated agreement, development of E1 has much wider implications for Palestinian territorial contiguity and the connection between East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
As settlements and outposts grow in numbers and Palestinians face increasing displacement, the future borders are being predetermined or possibly eradicated altogether.
- Are sanctions going to affect the outcome of the upcoming Israeli elections?
There is currently no credible polling demonstrating that targeted British sanctions or a settlement trade ban will move significant numbers of Israeli voters to vote differently. Israeli attitudes towards settlements, annexation and the Palestinian issue are strongly divided along existing political lines. Polling and research on elections doesn’t show this to be a top priority issue for voters.
British foreign policy cannot be determined by whether an Israeli politician might exploit it electorally, nor should the UK be taking voting trends into consideration.
- Why act now? Israel may have a more moderate government after the election.
There is no guarantee that there will be a change in government or policy after the Israeli elections on October 27th. A new government could present opportunities for diplomacy and change – the UK should continue to seek diplomatic routes and work with those willing.
But we need to be realistic about the reality on the ground, and the realistic political landscape. Leaders on the opposing side of the political spectrum from Netanyahu have also been opposed to Palestinian statehood, and many have supported settlement expansion in area C. They may be firmer on settler violence or illegal outposts – but the reality is we need to see substantive change, not just a slowing down of annexation in progress.
The occupation and settlement expansion did not begin with this government. What this government has done is dramatically accelerate these processes and further embed them within the Israeli state. Facts being created on the ground are increasingly difficult to reverse.
We shouldn’t frame the occupation as a problem of a few extremists. Sanctions against those responsible for violence and incitement are important but removing Ben-Gvir or Smotrich from government won’t create an alternative reality.
Hoping for a ‘better’ government cannot substitute for responding to what is happening now. The UK must respond to the current situation whilst also working with current and future partners in the region to create a drastically different reality.