The British Government’s decision to impose trade restrictions on goods and services connected to Israeli settlements in the West Bank is misguided, short-sighted and, above all, diplomatically dangerous.
It is entirely legitimate to disagree with the policies of the Israeli Government. There can and should be debate over settlements, construction and the shape of any future Israeli-Palestinian agreement. Disagreement between friends is legitimate. The use of sanctions and instruments of economic coercion against Israel is something fundamentally different.
Britain and Israel are strategic partners in security, intelligence, technology, trade and counter-terrorism. At a time of profound regional instability, responsible foreign policy should prioritise dialogue, diplomatic leverage and strategic engagement – not the creation of an expanding architecture of economic punishment.
The central problem is not simply the immediate economic impact of these measures, which may ultimately be relatively limited. The far more significant issue is the political and diplomatic precedent established when a close partner moves from diplomatic criticism towards sanctions and boycotts.
Once that principle becomes established, an obvious question follows: where does it end? Today the target is goods and services connected to settlements. Tomorrow, political activists and pressure groups will inevitably demand that the same infrastructure of economic exclusion be extended to other areas of Israeli economic and civic life.
There is also a serious issue of diplomatic signalling.
In the Middle East, policies are judged not only according to the intentions of those who introduce them, but according to how they are interpreted by the different actors in the region. When international pressure is directed disproportionately at Israel, there is a danger that rejectionism, radicalisation and international pressure are perceived as producing greater rewards than direct negotiation.
That is precisely the opposite incentive the international community should be creating.
If Britain genuinely wishes to preserve the possibility of a two-state solution, it should strengthen the conditions necessary for a negotiated settlement: security for Israel, responsible Palestinian leadership, the rejection of terrorism and incitement, mutual recognition, and mechanisms capable of bringing both parties towards difficult compromises.
Unilateral sanctions are not a substitute for diplomacy.
There may also be significant unintended consequences. Economic activity in the region does not take place in a vacuum. Businesses, supply chains and employment connect Israelis and Palestinians. Measures designed to exert pressure on one side can ultimately affect Palestinian workers and families whose livelihoods depend upon that same economic activity.
There is another dimension that cannot be ignored: Britain’s Jewish community.
At a time when British Jews are confronting a deeply challenging public environment and antisemitism, the Government has a particular responsibility to maintain a clear distinction between legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy and rhetoric that legitimises collective boycotts and exclusion. When the Government itself adopts the language and mechanisms of economic sanctions towards Israel, it must consider how that signal may be exploited and expanded within the wider public discourse.
We Believe in Israel unequivocally opposes this decision.
We believe in a strong relationship between Britain and Israel. We also believe that two democratic allies can – and sometimes must – disagree. But those disagreements should be managed through diplomacy, direct engagement and strategic dialogue, not through a policy trajectory of isolation and economic exclusion.
Britain has for decades been an important actor in the Middle East and an important partner of Israel. That gives Britain influence.
It should use that influence to build bridges, not dismantle them.
Peace will not be achieved through boycotts. Security will not be achieved through isolation. And a strategic partnership cannot thrive when diplomacy is progressively replaced by sanctions.
The British Government should reconsider this decision and return to a policy centred on dialogue, security, cooperation and direct negotiations – the only credible route towards a sustainable peace.