Letter to the FCDO on the Foreign Secretary’s announcement on Israel-Palestine
On 30 September 2026, JJP wrote to the Director, Middle East & North Africa, requesting a meeting to discuss the Foreign Secretary’s announcement on Israel-Palestine on 8 September in Parliament and his subsequent speech at the UN on 24 September. If followed through, the measures announced will mark a new determination to apply pressure on Israel to end the oppression of Palestinians. The Deputy Director replied immediately, agreeing to meet. JJP wrote similarly to the National Security Advisor, also requesting a meeting.
Our letter is below.
Rob Dixon 30 September 2026
Director, Middle East & North Africa
Ben Llewellyn-Jones
Head of Near East Department
FCDO
Dear Mr Dixon and Mr. Llewellyn-Jones,
We are writing following the Foreign Secretary’s announcement on Israel-Palestine on 8 September in Parliament and his subsequent speech at the UN on 24 September. This letter is in three parts, the substance of the announcement and the speech, the reaction of the big “official” Jewish communal groups to the announcement, and the acknowledged very high level of antisemitic incidents here.
We would like to meet to discuss these issues.
First, we commend both announcement and speech.
Among other measures, the Foreign Secretary declared the British Government’s official position that the entire occupation is illegal, in accordance with the International Court of Justice ruling; called the Israeli policy of ethnic cleansing in the West Bank by its right name; and prohibited marketing in the UK of settlements properties. They are powerful declarations. They demonstrate the UK’s commitment to holding Israel accountable for its actions under international law.
A fourth measure, banning import of products from Israeli settlements, is a powerful declaration of intent, but it is fraught with practical difficulties of implementation. To quote Professor Michael Lynk’s forward to the Global Echo Litigation Center report, “IMPORTING OCCUPATION” (June 2026), “agricultural goods produced in Israeli settlements enter European markets under the guise of Israeli origin… systematic concealment: settlement produce are hidden in plain sight, redirected through sham addresses, or mingled with goods from within Israel’s recognised borders… ” There is no reason to suppose Israel has not carried over its system of subterfuge into its agricultural exports to the UK after Brexit.
It is accordingly very difficult for us to see how such a ban can be enforced. Moreover, some settlement products now exported can be redirected to the Israeli market, thereby allowing export of equivalent products made in Israel which would nullify the economic effect of the ban. Apparently, Achdut, one of the leading conventional and organic tahini producers, has already done that.1
For those reasons, we believe the ban on imports from settlements is likely to become an empty declaration if not vigorously followed up. The key is the further sanctions: In his announcement, the Foreign Secretary said “action against specific companies and individuals who provide services such as construction, infrastructure, financing, or real estate for settlement expansion”, and even more clearly in the speech, “to break off the supply lines of finance and construction to settlement expansion”. In concert with other countries, particularly in the financial and insurance sectors, that has the potential to face Israeli and international companies with the choice of continuing to take part in the international financial systems or continuing to support settlements. That is the kind of action that can begin to force the Israeli political class to change its calculus of having it both ways, i.e. entrenching the occupation and simultaneously retaining all the benefits of being part of the international community.
We particularly commend the Foreign Secretary for saying at the UN, “And secondly, political pressure on the government of Israel. This is absolutely crucial to making a difference.” At last, a government minister said what has been self-evident for years. We urge the government to move quickly to implement the sanctions plan.
Second, the reaction of the big,”official” Jewish communal groups.
Unsurprisingly, the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council, and the Chief Rabbi all cried foul after the announcement, claiming that the measures would harm both countries security and economies and harm community relations here. Of course, the sting in the tail was in the last phrase – the sub-liminal claim that the measures were antisemitic and would foment antisemitism. They even implied the government was trying to placate pro-Palestinian demonstrators.2
We are confident the government was not taken in by that attempted manipulation. Part of the unstated “message” was undoubtedly the inference that the “Jewish community” is overwhelmingly feeling hurt by the announcement because it feels the government has treated Israel unfairly. We assure you, on the evidence of consistent polling in the Jewish community for the past 10 years, that is a false claim.
Repeated surveys have shown that opinion in the Jewish community about Israeli policies is actually sharply divided. While a big majority have feelings of attachment to Israel, that does not lead to majority support for Israeli policies. In fact, small majorities are now opposed to them. The sharp division has been evident since at least 2015, when City University published its seminal survey, Attitudes of British Jews towards Israel. The big Jewish communal organisations do not reveal this division of opinion. Rather, their silence about it gives the false impression of big majority support for Israeli policies. Appendix 1 summarises the most pertinent findings of the surveys.
The depth of disquiet about Israeli policies, even within the Board of Deputies, was laid bare by the open letter signed by 36 members of the Board, published on 16 April 2025 in the Financial Times. The letter was an anguished and very deep criticism of the cruelty of Israel’s war on Gaza, clearly written because the Board itself would not criticise Israel. Among other things, the letter said “Silence is seen as support for policies and actions that run contrary to our Jewish values.” It also said many more members shared that view but would not do so publicly. The Board’s response to the letter, publicised 10 days later, was to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the signatories. The five leading signatories were suspended for 18 months and the other 31 were given “notices of criticism”.3
This information can give the government confidence that, far from being uniformly opposed to the measures, a majority in the Jewish community will be with the government in deciding that putting pressure on Israel is the only way to make it end its oppression of the Palestinian people.
Third, the very high levels of antisemitism
In his announcement, the Foreign Secretary spoke movingly about the growing antisemitism in the UK and elsewhere. Among other things, he said “many members of the Jewish community now live in fear in the face of rising antisemitism”. We concur with his feelings. The risk of attacks on Jews or Jewish institutions has to be minimised by appropriate security measures, and planned attacks or actual attacks have to be dealt with by the full force of the law.
However, beyond that, the government needs to look very carefully at the causes of the vastly increased levels of antisemitism in order to deal with it rationally and, most important, not to exacerbate it. There are two salient facts. First, the number of antisemitic incidents in the UK has increased steadily and substantially, in fact nearly 10-fold, since 2000. Second, the increase has been closely correlated with violence in the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
The Community Security Trust (CST) category of Abusive Behaviour, which is basically antisemitic speech other than direct threats, is the most common kind of incident, comprising 83% of the 3,700 recorded incidents last year. The two CST categories of physical attacks “Extreme Violence” (life threatening violence) and “Assault” (less than life-threatening violence), are the least common, comprising 0.11% and 4.6% respectively.
Big spikes in incidents occur after what the CST calls “trigger events in the Middle East”, which are predominantly spikes of violence in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. These spikes lead immediately to spikes in antisemitic incidents here, and then to a gradual increase in the trend level of incidents. The four charts in Appendix 2 show the correlation, by month, from 2000 to 2025. The trend level of antisemitic incidents here has risen gradually from an average of 38 per month in 2000-2005, to an average of 154 per month in the year before the cataclysmic Hamas attack on Israel of 7 October 2023. Incidents jumped to 1,400 in October. During Israel’s subsequent unrelenting assault on Gaza, it has averaged 336 per month.
The high correlation is not surprising. Israel, as the self-proclaimed Jewish state, is inevitably associated with Jews. The big Jewish communal organisations reinforce that association because they are largely silent about Israel’s occupation policies, yet criticise UK government decisions that favour recognition of Palestinian rights. Israel tries to deflect criticism by calling it antisemitic. The big communal organisations echo the tactic, as we saw after the Foreign Secretary’s announcement. It is a truism that Jews here, or elsewhere in the diaspora, cannot be held responsible for what Israel does, but that does not change the association people perceive.
The big Jewish communal organisations have been campaigning for the pro-Palestinian marches to be proscribed. They say the marches make Jews feel threatened and/or that they foment antisemitism. We believe their motive is to try to suppress the mounting criticism of Israel and the pressure on the government to act. We believe it would not only be unjust to proscribe the marches, but it would also be counter-productive. The marchers anger is justified. Suppressed anger does not disappear. It redirects itself. For every potential antisemitic act that might be avoided, two would be created.
We hope to hear from you shortly to arrange a meeting.
Yours sincerely,
Arthur Goodman
Parliamentary and Diplomatic Officer
Notes
2. https://bod.org.uk/bod-news/board-of-deputies-expresses-deep-regret-at-government-announcement-of-sanctions-targeting-israeli-settlements/
3.https://www.ft.com/content/0023bfcb-df02-429c-be0f-c52a57633083 and https://bod.org.uk/findings-of-appeal-panel-regarding-complaints-against-signatories-to-april-2025-letter-in-financial-times/