Israel’s retaliation goes far beyond a diplomatic disagreemen

By Tony O’Reilly-

Israel’s decision to close the British consulate in East Jerusalem and impose entry bans on British politicians is a disproportionate response to Britain’s decision to ban imports from Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank.

The dispute represents a serious deterioration in relations between two countries that have historically been close allies. But the distinction between legitimate diplomatic disagreement and disproportionate retaliation matters. Britain has imposed targeted economic measures over settlement activity; Israel has responded by targeting Britain’s diplomatic presence and elected politicians.

That escalation should concern anyone who believes disagreements between democratic states should be managed through proportionate diplomatic channels. Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband announced the British measures after accusing extremist settlers of pursuing what he described as “ethnic cleansing” against Palestinians in the West Bank. The government said its action was designed to defend the possibility of a two-state solution and respond to settlement expansion and settler violence.

The measures are not, importantly, a blanket British boycott of Israel. They target goods originating from Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and economic activity associated with those settlements. Britain has also announced sanctions against individuals and companies connected to settlement activity. France and Canada have introduced similar meas

Miliband’s argument is not that Israel as a country should be isolated, nor that Israeli citizens should be punished for the actions of their government. Indeed, in his parliamentary statement he explicitly said Britain’s dispute was with “the conduct of its government”, not with the Israeli people.

He also made an unequivocal condemnation of antisemitism, saying that holding British Jews responsible for decisions made by the Israeli government was “antisemitism, plain and simple”. Those statements matter because criticism of Israeli government policy and hostility towards Jewish people are not the same thing.

A democratic government must be able to criticise another government’s policies without that criticism being characterised as an attack on an entire nationality or religion. Equally, opposition to Israeli settlement policy cannot be allowed to become a pretext for antisemitism against Britain’s Jewish community. Miliband’s position attempts to draw precisely that line.

Why the British action is defensible

There is a straightforward argument for Britain taking action.

Israeli settlements in the West Bank have long been regarded by Britain and much of the international community as contrary to international law. The International Court of Justice’s 2024 advisory opinion concluded that Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful and called for settlement activity to cease. Britain has also repeatedly described settlement expansion as an obstacle to a negotiated two-state solution.

The latest British action therefore did not emerge from nowhere. It follows years of warnings about settlement expansion, and comes as Israel continues to advance major settlement projects, including the controversial E1 development. Critics argue that projects such as E1 could sever the territorial continuity needed for a viable Palestinian state.

Miliband’s central argument is consequently political as well as legal.Iif Britain genuinely believes that settlement expansion is destroying the possibility of two states, continuing simply to express concern risks becoming an empty exercise.

There is a legitimate argument about whether sanctions are effective. The economic impact of the British measures is likely to be limited because settlement exports represent only a small proportion of Israel’s overall trade. But the government is clearly seeking a political rather than purely commercial effect — establishing that settlement activity carries consequences.

And Britain is not acting alone. France and Canada have joined the measures, while a wider group of countries has backed sanctions or expressed support for the two-state objective. That makes the British decision considerably more significant than a unilateral gesture

Israel’s retaliation crosses a different line

Israel’s response goes considerably further without rational justification. Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar (pictured)announced that Israel would close the British consulate in East Jerusalem, remove British representatives from an international Gaza support centre and restrict entry to a number of British officials and politicians. Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana were among those reported to be affected. Israel also announced measures affecting British involvement in training Palestinian security forces

The consulate decision is particularly serious. The British consulate in East Jerusalem is not simply another diplomatic office. It has historically been an important part of Britain’s engagement with Palestinians in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza. Closing it therefore risks reducing Britain’s ability to conduct precisely the diplomatic and humanitarian work that is required at a time of profound instability.

Stephen  WaltProfessor of International affairs at Harvard Kenendy school, commenting on the development, told The Eye Of Media: ”Israel is entitled to object to British policy, and  to summon diplomats, issue formal protests, impose carefully targeted diplomatic consequences and argue its case internationally. But closing a consulate and restricting elected British politicians because Britain has imposed a targeted trade measure is a dramatically escalatory response.

”It risks punishing the machinery of diplomacy itself. And that is where Israel’s response becomes difficult to defend as proportionate. Britain did not close the Israeli embassy in London. It did not impose a general ban on Israeli imports. It did not sever diplomatic relations. It did not prohibit Israelis from entering Britain.

”Instead, it specifically targeted economic activity connected to settlements that Britain regards as unlawful. Israel has chosen to retaliate against Britain’s diplomatic infrastructure and political representatives. That is a qualitatively different response.

There is another reason the Israeli response should concern Britain and its allies.If every Western government that imposes sanctions or criticises Israeli settlement policy risks losing diplomatic access, then the space for meaningful international diplomacy becomes narrower.

The purpose of diplomacy is not to ensure that countries agree. It exists precisely because countries disagree. Britain and Israel can disagree profoundly about settlements, the occupation, Palestinian statehood and the conduct of the war in Gaza while maintaining diplomatic relations.

Indeed, maintaining those channels becomes more important as disagreement intensifies.Israel’s argument is that Britain has interfered in its domestic affairs and unfairly targeted it. That argument deserves to be heard. Israeli officials have every right to challenge the legal and political basis of Britain’s measures.  But the answer to a disputed British policy should be to challenge it — not to make diplomatic engagement harder.

A line that Britain must also maintain

Supporting Miliband’s decision does not mean giving the British government a blank cheque.The Government must ensure that its measures are evidence-based, legally defensible and precisely targeted. It must distinguish clearly between the Israeli state, Israeli citizens, Jewish communities and settlement activity. That is why Miliband’s condemnation of antisemitism is so important.

Britain can condemn settlement expansion while standing firmly against antisemitism. It can support Palestinian rights while defending Israel’s right to security. It can oppose the policies of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government without treating Israeli people collectively as responsible. Those positions are not contradictory.

Indeed, they are essential if Britain is to pursue a credible foreign policy in the region.The strongest argument for Miliband’s action is therefore not that Britain should punish Israel. It is that international law and the prospect of a viable Palestinian state cannot be defended indefinitely through statements alone.

If Britain believes settlement expansion is undermining the two-state solution, it is reasonable for it to attach consequences to economic activity that directly sustains that expansion. Israel may reject that reasoning. It may challenge the legality of the measures. It may protest diplomatically.

But closing Britain’s consulate and restricting elected British politicians looks less like a proportionate diplomatic response ,and more like an attempt to impose a cost on Britain for exercising an independent foreign policy. At a time when the region desperately needs more diplomacy, not less, that is a dangerous direction to take.

Britain should therefore stand by the principle behind Miliband’s decision while making equally clear that opposition to Israeli government policy is not opposition to Israel, and criticism of settlement activity is not antisemitism.

The test now is whether both governments can step back from retaliation and restore the diplomatic channels needed to address the far greater crisis confronting Israelis and Palestinians. Britain has chosen economic pressure. Israel has chosen diplomatic retaliation. The question is which approach is more likely to preserve the possibility of peace.