Voice of the Jewish News: UK’s Israel sanctions are cynical, premature and dangerously timed
Instead of waiting for the results of what could be Israel's most impactful election in a generation, Labour has chosen to pre-empt it
In October, Israel goes to the polls, in what has been described as the most politically consequential election in a generation. Broadly speaking, the Israeli electorate will have the choice to either opt for the status quo, or for change.
While settler violence has been an issue in the West Bank for decades, it is unquestionable that its overall level has increased in recent years, as a direct result of the inclusion of different extremist parties into Israel’s current governing coalition – particularly those led by Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben Gvir.
It is therefore highly likely that if Israeli opposition parties win the next election, as polling suggests that they are on course to do, a number of the most morally ruinous policies advanced under the country’s current leadership will be reversed. A swathe of settlement projects pushed forward by Smotrich will be cancelled. A culture where settler extremists appear confident, as a result of Ben Gvir’s grotesque appointment as ‘Security Minister’, to engage in acts of terror without consequence from the IDF will end. And a rogue’s gallery of some of the most venal, corrupt and self-aggrandizing Ministers the country has ever seen will be out on their ear.
As the election has come closer, so too have the actions and rhetoric of Israel’s far right become more extreme, as they attempt to energise their base – a strong international reaction actually plays right into Benjamin Netanyahu’s hands, as he will engage in his patented ‘the world is against us and only I have the strength to fight for you’ routine. The international community could have either realised that these are the desperate actions of a government which is hopefully in its final death throes, and wait accordingly – or it could jump in now, announcing sanctions that could potentially even help the current coalition in its bid to retain its clammy grip on power. It appears to have chosen the latter.
We totally reject the idea that the British government should never criticise or take action against specific Israeli policy simply because Israel is the Jewish State. At the same time, however, if the metric the UK should apply when considering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is “does this action further the prospect of a two-state solution” – the answer in this instance is “no”. But that is not the only aspect that the British government is taking into account.
There are also, quite obviously, domestic political concerns. It is clear that Andy Burnham, now that Parliament has returned, wants to quickly present a clear difference between the Israel stance taken by his Labour government compared to that of his predecessor, Keir Starmer. But this country has also seen a multi-year campaign, involving mass demonstrations and concerted pressure at national, regional and local levels, to turn Israel into a pariah state.
This announcement comes two weeks before Labour party conference – because there is a domestic need to be seen to be doing something sooner rather than later, and because the Green party, which has picked up a raft of votes which would previously have gone to Labour, has made ‘Palestine’ its most central issue – over and above the environment itself.
We reject the lazy stereotypes which claim that this action has been undertaken to win over a specific minority community – there are plenty of people on the Left of politics, from a variety of different backgrounds, whom the government is keen to win back.
But we also reject the ludicrous denials from some quarters that domestic considerations have played no part in this at all.
If only the United Kingdom had previously demonstrated an ability to answer some of the most difficult questions regarding a Two-State solution – such as the question of sovereignty of some of Judaism’s holiest sites – perhaps we could regard this next step with relative equanimity. Unfortunately, the opposite is true.
As part of its volte face in September 2025 in its decision to recognise a Palestinian state, the UK decided to recognise such a state based on the 1949 armistice line, meaning that suddenly it was the UK’s policy that the Old City of Jerusalem – including some of Judaism’s holiest sites – should be under Palestinian sovereignty. Despite repeated requests for the FCDO to further elaborate on this, vagueness appeared to a calculated aim.
The important thing for the government appeared to be announcing recognition of a Palestinian state – never mind the specifics. Of course, it could be argued that it was this exact vague approach by Britain to territorial disputes in the 20th century that has made the region the geopolitical challenge that it is today.
Likewise, if the United Kingdom married its regular and trenchant criticism of Israeli settler extremism with criticism of Palestinian extremism, this would also be of some comfort. But when it comes to the latter, the British state is silent. To give an example, last month it became clear that Palestinian Authority schools – not for the first time – were teaching children via questions designed to glorify the murder of Jews. Children were given the following maths problem: “At least 150 Israelis were killed in 1 day. What was the number killed in 9 days?”
In another example, the Fatah movement – led by Mahmoud Abbas, the aging President of the Palestinian Authority, has a society for female students at West Bank universities, called the “Sisters of Dalal” Committee. It is named after Dalal Mughrabi, a female PLO terrorist who led a raid into Israel from Lebanon which killed 48 civilians – men, women and children. Mughrabi, who was 18 at the time, and was killed in the attack, personally took part in the murders. Palestinian terror attacks in the West Bank have also previously killed British citizens – such as Lucy, Maia and Rina Dee, who were murdered in April 2023. Despite his lengthy statement to the House of Commons, Mr Miliband appeared to have had no room to acknowledge any of this.