Settlement apologists in the Jewish community are on the wrong side of history

Daniel Bral writes in Haaretz on 2 September 2026:

The U.K. government is examining a new policy banning trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. As expected, the very discussion of such a policy drew swift condemnations from Jewish establishment figures, both in Britain and the United States. Their criticism reveals a fundamental contradiction: Jewish officials and organizations who profess opposition to the ongoing expansion of the settlement enterprise, oppose with even greater vigor any attempts to slow it down.

Take for example the American Jewish Committee, which put out a statement on Tuesday that it is “deeply concerned,” adding that “disagreements over settlements and the future of the West Bank should be addressed through diplomacy and direct negotiations, not blanket trade bans.” A similar argument was made by the Chief Rabbi of the U.K., Ephraim Mirvis, who warned that sanctions against settlements will in fact “endanger” a future “vision of peace.”

To argue that sanctions meant to preserve peace endanger it is a perversion. The very existence, entrenchment, and expansion of settlements is, in fact, surgically designed to kill peace. The Chief Rabbi also lamented that sanctions would come “at a time when the vilification of Jews, Judaism and the Jewish State has already reached unprecedented levels.” AJC echoed those concerns.

The vilification is real. But the settlement enterprise itself fuels this vilification more than efforts to restrain it. The images of Israeli settlers attacking and displacing Palestinian villagers are a big part of the problem. Whatever anxieties sanctions may cause must be weighed against the moral obligation to protect Palestinians’ right to life, which settlers and settlements threaten.

The Chief Rabbi contended that sanctions “will not influence Israeli decision-making” while AJC offered boilerplate language about the need for negotiations. Perhaps sanctions won’t compel a course correction, but what can foreign governments do, in that case, to protect a stateless people when the government exercising effective control over them has created conditions that demand relief?

The alternative AJC and others suggest, “diplomacy and direct negotiations,” requires suspending reality. One cannot champion negotiations while intervening on behalf of the leader who has made sabotaging negotiations a source of pride. Netanyahu’s very sabotage is why foreign governments had to step in and preserve what is left to negotiate over. With Jewish institutional intervention, why should Netanyahu negotiate when he can have his cake and eat it too?

Establishment Jewish groups like AJC have routinely condemned settler terrorism in the West Bank over the years; what is there to show for all these condemnations? Palestinians only face worsening violence. The Netanyahu government has priced global condemnation into the cost of doing business. It understands that the same organizations issuing condemnations will be the first to mobilize against meaningful policy restraints. That paradox is foundational to the settlement enterprise’s sustenance.

While the condemnations are being typed, settlers continue apace working hand-in-glove with the Israeli government in their shared project of dispossession.

The Chief Rabbi closed his statement with a lamentation: a “painful conclusion” that British foreign policy is now being driven by “domestic political considerations.” The implication is that pressure from progressive and Muslim voters influenced this decision. Brazenness aside, why should Israeli leaders be insulated from the consequences of turning public opinion all over the world against their country by executing deeply unpopular policies that often run counter to international law?

To argue that Israeli leaders shouldn’t face any consequences for their policy decisions is to insist that only Israel should be given a free hand. Jewish institutions rightfully protest double standards applied to Israel. Yet in this case, they perpetuate one themselves.

In the spirit of closing with a lamentation, as the Chief Rabbi did, let us instead lament settler terrorism and the occupation more broadly, and our longstanding enabling of both, which represent a moral degradation and a deviation from the light we have sought to be unto the nations.

Daniel Bral is a writer on Israel, American Jewry, and peace. His work has appeared in the Los Angeles Times, Haaretz, and other publications.

This article is reproduced in its entirety