Prominent Israeli political, diplomatic, military and academic figures have welcomed new British sanctions targeting illegal settlement activity and violence in the occupied West Bank, describing the measures as a necessary response to failures by the Israeli government and security establishment.
In a joint statement, former senior officials and public figures argued that the sanctions were directed against individuals involved in violence rather than against Israel itself. They also rejected the Israeli government’s claim that the measures represented antisemitism, describing international action as an “inevitable consequence” of Israel’s failure to address settler violence.
British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband had previously indicated that London was considering further action, but the scope of the measures and the strength of his criticism surprised Israeli officials. The sanctions represent one of the more significant recent attempts by a close Israeli ally to use economic pressure over developments in the occupied West Bank.
The British move gained greater significance after France and Canada announced plans to restrict trade in goods produced in settlements, while 10 other European countries supported similar measures. Senior figures in the Trump administration, which had reportedly been informed about the British plans beforehand, did not publicly criticise the decision.
The measures come amid growing international concern over settlement expansion and violence against Palestinians. A recent poll by the Jewish People Policy Institute found that nearly three-quarters of Jewish Israelis supported partial or complete annexation of the occupied West Bank, while leading candidates in Israel’s forthcoming election oppose the establishment of a Palestinian state.
At the same time, opposition to settler violence is becoming increasingly visible among sections of Israel’s political, security and cultural establishment. Some prominent Israelis have even threatened legal action against their own government over what they describe as official support for extremist violence and an ideology of ethnic cleansing in the occupied territories.
Professor David Harel, president of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, was among those supporting the British measures. While opposing sweeping boycotts or sanctions against Israel as a whole, he argued that targeted international action against specific Israeli policies and activities in the West Bank was justified.
Harel also rejected arguments that international pressure should be postponed until after Israel’s elections. In his view, Palestinians continue to face violence while the occupation itself threatens Israel’s long-term interests. Ending abuses and returning seriously to discussion of a two-state settlement, he argued, would benefit Israelis as well as Palestinians.
The joint statement was also signed by former prime minister Ehud Olmert, former military chief Dan Halutz, former ministers Yuli Tamir and Roni Bar-On, and former ambassador to Germany Yoram Ben Zeev. They argued that measures against extremist violence could help Israel confront a problem its own institutions had failed to contain.
Former diplomat Nadav Tamir similarly maintained that efforts to prevent annexation and the forced displacement of Palestinians served Israel’s long-term interests by protecting its democratic character and improving its security.
Although the direct economic value of goods exported from the occupied territories to Britain is relatively small, the wider implications of the sanctions could be more significant. According to Roey Fisher, head of Israel’s Foreign Trade Administration, exports from the occupied territories to Britain were worth about $45 million last year, compared with total bilateral trade in goods and services of about $4.4 billion.
The more consequential element could be restrictions on companies involved in financing or facilitating settlement expansion. If implemented broadly, such measures could confront Israeli banks and insurance companies with difficult choices between their commercial relationships in Britain and activities connected with settlements in occupied Palestinian territory. Details of the British measures have yet to be fully announced, but they could potentially affect the financing and expansion of settlements.
Avraham Burg, a former speaker of the Knesset, described the British action as an important beginning and urged London not to stop there.
The Israeli government, however, strongly rejected the intervention. Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar accused Miliband of “blatant interference” in Israeli domestic affairs ahead of elections scheduled for late October. Some opposition politicians also warned that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could use the sanctions politically, portraying external pressure as an attack on Israel and mobilising his supporters around it.
Israeli political analyst Dahlia Scheindlin, however, argued that the measures were unlikely to significantly alter the election. Since the attacks of October 7, 2023, she said, Israeli politics has become increasingly inward-looking. Netanyahu’s supporters may interpret foreign sanctions as evidence of international hostility or antisemitism, while his opponents may see them as further evidence of Israel’s growing isolation under his government. Neither reaction necessarily changes existing electoral loyalties.
The timing of the British announcement was particularly sensitive. Israeli political parties were finalising their candidate lists, while renewed attention was being given to reports that security warnings had been presented to Netanyahu before the October 7 attacks.
Fourteen Israeli human rights organisations, including B’Tselem, Physicians for Human Rights Israel and Breaking the Silence, also welcomed the sanctions. They described them as an important first step and called for further international measures aimed at preventing external economic and political relationships from facilitating settlement expansion, forced displacement and other abuses against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.
The response inside Israel therefore reveals a widening divide. While the government portrays foreign sanctions as unacceptable interference, a significant group of former officials, diplomats, academics and human rights organisations sees targeted international pressure as necessary precisely because Israeli institutions have failed to restrain settlement expansion and violence.
For these Israelis, the argument is not that sanctions should be used against Israel indiscriminately. Rather, they believe carefully targeted measures can distinguish between opposition to Israel’s existence and opposition to specific policies in the occupied territories.
The British sanctions may have limited immediate economic impact, but their political significance is greater: a close Israeli ally is moving from expressions of concern towards economic pressure, while prominent Israelis themselves are arguing that such pressure may ultimately serve both Palestinian rights and Israel’s long-term interests.
