Israel’s response to UK settlement sanctions is a media-hyped nothingburger
Alex Stein writes in Haaretz on 9 September 2026:
Amidst the furore over the announcement of new sanctions against Israeli settlements, a key point risks getting missed. Despite the bluster, Israel’s response reveals it has little deterrence against states willing to push back on its policy of permanent occupation.
The Israeli government focused its rage on the U.K., which led a group of 12 countries in promoting these sanctions. In an apoplectic response to Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband’s speech, his Israeli counterpart Gideon Saar announced four “countermeasures” against Britain: the closure of the British Consulate in Jerusalem, the removal of British representatives from the International Gaza Support Center in Kiryat Gat, the termination of the “British Support Team in Ramallah” (which trains the Palestinian Authority’s security forces) and the denial of entry to 12 British elected representatives involved in antisemitic and anti-Israel activity.
The most significant of these measures is the closing of the Jerusalem consulate, which handles Britain’s political, economic and security relationship with the Palestinians. This will reduce British influence, as will the end of its involvement in the Gaza Support Center and the training program for Palestinian Authority forces. Yet this price was presumably factored into the Labour government’s decision to go ahead with the sanctions. As for the denial of entry for 12 elected representatives, I doubt Miliband or Burnham are losing any sleep over Jeremy Corbyn no longer being able to visit Ramallah.
Thus, Israel has responded to the most serious sanctions ever placed on the settlements with a nothingburger. Arguing for a stronger response, Jake Wallis Simons noted in the Telegraph that bilateral trade between Israel and Britain stood at £5.9 billion last year, with Britain having a surplus. But sanctioning Britain economically would also hurt Israel and accelerate its own economic isolation. It would also be disproportionate, given that Britain’s measures are specifically aimed at the settlements. Israel would be cutting off its nose to spite its face.
Critics of Britain’s decision also warn that it could harm intelligence cooperation between the two countries. But how would ceasing this cooperation help Israel? If Israel had intelligence like the tip-off UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed reportedly gave Netanyahu before Oct. 7, would the Mossad withhold it from MI5 to punish Britain for sanctioning settlements? This doesn’t seem plausible, and would only bring more damage to Israel’s international reputation.
Nor does America seem to be coming to the rescue. Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s lukewarm response was: “We’re not going to do what the U.K. did today, but I don’t have any comment on it.” British Prime Minister Andy Burnham reportedly briefed U.S. President Donald Trump, who did not request a delay from the British side. While the U.S. may take further measures against Britain in the coming days, these will presumably also have been factored in.
None of this means that these sanctions will prove particularly effective. The timing of their unveiling, less than 50 days before Israel’s election, is probably not very helpful, and it is doubtful that one can take effective punitive action against the settlement enterprise without sanctioning Israel as a whole.
Symbolically, though, the significance is undeniable, marking the first time an OECD country has backed up its rhetoric against Israel’s West Bank policy with action. From now on, the direction of travel is clear.
If Israel maintains its policy of permanent occupation (or worse), sanctions will intensify. Israel can perhaps cope with these sanctions, but without changing political direction it lacks the tools to stop them – as proven by its weak response against Britain.
Alex Stein is a writer, tour guide, and educator based in Jerusalem; His writing appears on the “Love of the Land” Substack.
This article is reproduced in its entirety