This week in the House of Commons, Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband appeared to endorse the concept of implementing a trade ban between the United Kingdom and Israeli settlements, which the UK deems illegal under international law. This decision is significantly overdue. The real challenge now is whether Miliband’s proposed “comprehensive reset” will live up to its name. Simply halting the entry of goods produced in settlements at the border is insufficient. The UK must take further action to prevent its businesses from supporting settlement activities—such as financing, constructing, insuring, or advertising—in areas it recognizes as unlawfully occupied. The ban needs to be robust and enforceable.
The United Kingdom can no longer turn a blind eye to the violence and pressure faced by Palestinians in the West Bank from the Israeli government, military, and settlers. According to United Nations reports, there have been over 1,400 attacks by settlers this year alone, approaching the record of 1,800 incidents documented in 2025. The current election campaign has exacerbated these tensions. Last month, Israel announced plans for 1,234 housing units in the controversial E1 development located east of Jerusalem. Government officials approved this settlement, which has long been criticized for effectively dividing the West Bank, with the explicit aim of “erasing” the prospect of a Palestinian state—a goal that the UK officially supports.
Israeli officials have reacted strongly, threatening repercussions if the UK enforces sanctions related to settlement expansion. While this response is disappointing, it is not unexpected. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has labeled countries imposing sanctions as exhibiting “moral bankruptcy.” However, the UK would be aligning itself with several other European nations that increasingly view such measures as necessary under international law. For instance, Spain has prohibited imports from settlements, Norway is working on legislation against trade and services connected to these areas, and nine EU member states have urged action from the European Commission.
Since 1967, Israel has established around 160 settlements, accommodating approximately 700,000 Jewish residents among 3.3 million Palestinians in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem. There are growing calls to suspend the EU’s trade agreement with Israel. The UK is a participant in this agreement, and under the leadership of Sir Keir Starmer, the Labour Party has expressed a desire to “distinguish and protect trade with people and businesses across the state of Israel.” This approach has led critics to caution that targeting settlements could inadvertently result in a “de facto” boycott of Israel. However, this perspective misrepresents the situation: Israel cannot integrate the settlements into its economy and then claim that other nations must treat them as part of its territory.
Miliband has political flexibility to act. Recent polling indicates that even supporters of Reform UK and the Conservative Party are more likely to favor a trade ban on settlements than to oppose it. In Parliament, there appears to be a consensus, spanning from the Green Party to Labour and Conservative MPs, that action is necessary.
The expansion of settlements has accelerated since Netanyahu’s far-right coalition assumed power in 2022 and has intensified following the violent attacks by Hamas that triggered the Gaza conflict in 2023. The legal justification for action is compelling: other nations are already taking steps, and a political window is opening even as the process of creeping annexation continues. Israel is solidifying civilian control over occupied territories as settlements extend their reach. The situation in Gaza, where over 70,000 Palestinians have lost their lives, has understandably drawn significant global attention. While it is acknowledged that Israel exists within a volatile and hostile region, its actions tend to exacerbate rather than mitigate that instability. Nonetheless, the issues in the West Bank and Jerusalem cannot be overlooked. Security concerns cannot serve as a justification for ideological land seizures.
