Miliband’s Announcement: Approach With Extreme Caution
3 hours ago
5 min read
Britain’s new measures against Israeli settlements look tougher than they are
Ed Miliband announced today that Britain will ban imports from Israeli settlements in the West Bank and introduce powers to sanction people and companies that support, facilitate or profit from settlement activity. Britain will also target services connected with settlements and apply a new arms test to prevent licences for equipment that materially contribute to the occupation. France and Canada are taking similar action. Other countries have expressed support, but they are not all introducing identical measures.
The Government’s case rests on international law because in July 2024, the International Court of Justice concluded that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was unlawful. It said Israel must bring that presence to an end as rapidly as possible and immediately cease all new settlement activity.
It set out obligations for other states, that they must not recognise the unlawful situation as legal. They must distinguish, in their dealings with Israel, between Israel itself and the territory occupied since 1967. And they must not render aid or assistance in maintaining the unlawful situation. The Court went further, saying states must take steps to prevent trade or investment relations that assist in maintaining it (International Court of Justice). That is the legal foundation for what Miliband said today.
It is also what makes the Government’s position somewhat difficult because if Britain accepts the Court’s reasoning, the question is not simply whether it should ban settlement-grown produce; it is what Britain’s legal obligations mean for the rest of the relationship. The Government has chosen to draw a line between Israel and the occupied territories. But it is drawing that line selectively and for probably good reason: the settlement economy is tiny in comparison with Britain’s wider relationship with Israel. The Government is not imposing a general trade embargo. It is not ending diplomatic relations. It is not cutting the wider economic relationship. And it has certainly not imposed a blanket prohibition on military exports to Israel.
That is the key point. The ICJ says states must not assist in maintaining an unlawful situation. Miliband expressly accepted that principle. Despite this, the overwhelming majority of Britain’s relationship with Israel remains outside the proposed new restrictions. There is a perfectly respectable legal argument for drawing distinctions. The ICJ did not say that every transaction with Israel was prohibited. It said states must distinguish between Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory and must not assist in maintaining the unlawful situation. But this makes the Government’s choice of measures more, rather than less, important. Miliband’s initiative has to demonstrate that the restrictions actually prevent British money, services, investment and military equipment from helping to entrench the occupation, otherwise the distinction is largely a pretence.
Michael Sfard, one of Israel’s leading human rights lawyers and an advocate for Palestinian rights, understands the significance of that distinction. He described the British measures as “enormously important”, saying they “redraw the green line and provide a recommitment to international law”. But his next point is the one worth noting: “Every cent that goes from the UK or other countries to support the economy of settlements is a cent that allows violation of international law.” (The Guardian). This is what goes directly to the weakness in the Government’s position: if the purpose of the measures is to stop Britain assisting the settlement enterprise, then their significance should not be measured by the value of the goods Britain imports from settlements, it should be judged by everything Britain permits to continue. The list is long and includes financial services, insurance, professional services, investment, corporate structures technology. And, most significantly, military exports.
The Government says it is introducing a new test for arms licences where equipment would materially contribute to the occupation. That is self-evidently not saying that all military exports to Israel are prohibited. If the legal principle is that Britain must not assist in maintaining the unlawful occupation, the Government will have to explain how it decides when assistance becomes sufficiently connected to the occupation to justify stopping an export. This is not some semantic exercise. It is the difference between a sanctions policy with real effect and one that is empty symbolism.
The same problem applies to trade. Settlement goods are not separately identified in Britain’s ordinary trade statistics. The settlements are economically integrated with Israel, making the origin of some goods difficult to establish. The Government’s import ban will therefore depend upon rules yet to be tested in practice. And the sanctions against companies could be considerably more important than the import ban. If British banks, insurers, lawyers, accountants and other professional firms conclude that involvement with settlement activity exposes them to sanctions, the effect could reach well beyond the value of the goods themselves and that is where the real impact may be.
And the same caution needs to be exercised over the language of “ethnic cleansing”. News reports have framed this as part of a historic shift in UK foreign policy. Miliband used the term to describe what is happening in parts of the West Bank. If it was being used as political shorthand for forced displacement, intimidation and the removal of Palestinians from their land, it plainly intended to convey the gravity of what the Government says is happening. But if it was intended as within an international law paradigm it was hardly a historic move. International humanitarian law already imposes obligations concerning the treatment and protection of civilians under occupation. The ICJ’s 2024 opinion considered the consequences of settlement expansion, discrimination, annexation and the denial of Palestinian self-determination. It concluded that Israel must immediately cease new settlement activity and that other states have corresponding obligations of non-recognition and non-assistance (International Court of Justice). Britain has not suddenly discovered that settlements are illegal. British governments have said that for years. The ICJ did not tell states merely to stop buying settlement produce. It required them to distinguish between Israel and the occupied territory, not recognise the unlawful situation and not assist in maintaining it (International Court of Justice).
The reality is that, despite this announcement, the ties that bind Britain and Israel remain. Trade remains. Diplomatic relations remain. Security cooperation remains. Military exports remain subject to licensing. The Government has deliberately confined today’s measures to settlement-related activity and the occupation (GOV.UK). This is why the announcement cannot be described as a major shift of policy. It may be that Britain is saying that it has drawn a harder line around the settlements but much of the relationship on the other side of it remains intact, despite the UK consulate in Jerusalem being closed.
The ICJ’s opinion is clear about the obligations it places on third states. Including on Britain. International law requires that Britain should follow those obligations to their logical conclusion.
This article represents the personal perspective of Imran Khan KC and was first published on Substack. You can read the original article here:
