The consistent tendency of UK Foreign Office ministers over the years to release generic statements of concern regarding the expansion of illegal settlements in Israel has often been the subject of mockery.
Even among Conservative officials who have issued these statements, such as Alan Duncan and Alistair Burt, there has been acknowledgment of their ineffectiveness. Duncan criticized the UK’s approach to settlements as feeble and overly naive, while Burt expressed skepticism over the Foreign Office’s ability to develop new expressions of diplomatic disapproval that ultimately led to no tangible actions. Margaret Thatcher, who often grappled with her support for Israel and the apprehension of Gulf states potentially falling under Soviet influence, similarly voiced her frustration regarding the settlements.
Despite the waning hope from Israel regarding a two-state solution, a commitment upheld by the UK at the UN since at least 1946, the UK has largely failed to implement meaningful policies to curb the expansion of these illegal settlements.
The UK-Israel trade agreement prohibits preferential tariffs on goods originating from territories administered by Israel after June 1967. While the business department advised firms against engaging with these settlements, many companies disregarded this guidance or simply rebranded their products as being from Israel to qualify for the preferential tariffs. In June, former trade minister Chris Bryant revealed to the business select committee that determining the origin of goods was quite challenging.
Furthermore, legal opinions indicated that the UK could impose sanctions on entities only if they were directly associated with settler violence, but not simply for being involved in settlement activities.
This complex moral and legal landscape was what Ed Miliband confronted upon becoming foreign secretary. He promptly stated his commitment to not remain a passive observer amidst the ongoing suffering and the threats posed to the two-state solution by settlement growth. His stance found backing from Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
Miliband believed that the UK could not pretend to be powerless; doing so, or merely paying lip service, would be detrimental to Israel’s future. He was perhaps the sole prominent Labour figure capable of rapidly advocating this perspective, effectively challenging the inertia and caution entrenched in Foreign Office legal counsel.
His Jewish background—his mother, Marion Kozak, being a Holocaust survivor who emigrated to Israel—combined with his upbringing amid the Israeli-Palestinian discourse and his understanding of antisemitism, positioned him uniquely to serve as a critical ally to Israel.
Although US Ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, recently accused the Labour government of harboring antisemitism, targeting Miliband specifically, the latter countered that true security for Israel lies in enabling Palestinian self-determination and fully implementing the two-state solution. He asserted that attributing the actions of the Israeli government to Jewish individuals is a clear form of antisemitism.
As the first UK foreign secretary to label the situation in the West Bank as ethnic cleansing, Miliband’s statements effectively accused Israel of overlooking actions that could be classified as war crimes.
He also addressed the prolonged delay in responding to the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion issued in June 2024, which declared the occupation unlawful. Acknowledging the court’s stance, he accepted that both the occupation and the settlements were included in this designation. This acceptance arguably imposes greater obligations on the UK government to refrain from facilitating the occupation and may clarify why the trade restrictions extend to services, including insurance for illegal settlements.
One of Miliband’s significant diplomatic achievements was securing agreements with France and Canada to implement similar trade bans. France had already taken a leading role in recognizing Palestine last year, while the UK now aims to lead on the implications of that recognition.
Paris seems to have been influenced by the UK to stop waiting for a consensus among EU nations for collective action, recognizing that opposition in Germany and apathy within parts of the European Commission were unlikely to change. A coalition of countries imposing trade restrictions together complicates any potential Israeli retaliation and highlights Israel’s growing isolation.
However, perceived limitations remain evident.
Miliband has left it to international courts to determine whether genocide has occurred in Gaza, a process that could take several years. He acknowledged the accumulating evidence of ethnic cleansing in Gaza but stated that it was ultimately for the courts to decide.
There is also no commitment to protect the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court from the US efforts to undermine them. Regarding UK arms sales, there remains an exemption for components of F-35 jets supplied to the US, justified on the grounds that these jets “do not materially support the occupation,” according to the criteria set by the foreign secretary.
Miliband specifically criticized the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement for targeting the entire Israeli economy rather than just the occupied territories. The secondary legislation necessary for broader sanctions could take up to nine months to enact, in contrast to the swift sanctions imposed on Russia following the annexation of Crimea.
Nonetheless, concentrating solely on what is lacking overlooks the significance of the current developments. Duncan, for example, remarked, “Finally, in the face of state-backed terrorism by illegal settlers, the British government has demonstrated unprecedented moral courage.”
