The United Kingdom’s decision to ban trade and business dealings with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank was assessed by international law expert Dr. Shahd Hammouri and Martin Shaw, Emeritus Professor of International Relations and Politics at the University of Sussex.
Hammouri, from the City Law School, said Israeli settlements had been unlawful since their establishment. She said states’ obligation not to trade with these settlements was based on the principle of non-recognition, adding that Israeli companies operating in the area use water and land resources.
According to Hammouri, the expansion of the settlements has created an unequal system that limits Palestinians’ economic development. She said the United Kingdom’s obligation not to trade with the settlements had emerged long ago and criticized the fact that the ban was being implemented only now.
Describing the decision as a minimal step, Hammouri argued that the United Kingdom had not taken measures that would create economic deterrence against Israel. She said a comprehensive trade ban should cover not only settlement products but also weapons, energy and financial infrastructure.
Hammouri said the obligation in question stemmed from the International Court of Justice ruling that Israel’s presence in the West Bank and Gaza was unlawful, as well as the obligation to prevent genocide. She also said a report by Francesca Albanese, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Palestine, stated that many states had failed to fulfill their obligations regarding the responsibility of third states.
Hammouri said Palestinians had sought compensation in British courts over Israel’s violations, adding that these cases had struggled to move forward because of political reluctance and the limited availability of legal avenues.
Hammouri also said demonstrations in the United Kingdom against the occupation and attacks in Gaza had continued, with more than one million people taking part. She argued that the government’s decision was aimed more at the public and voters than at changing policy, and said Israel’s public threats against British officials were a cause for concern for British citizens.
London’s policy toward Israel
Martin Shaw said the International Court of Justice’s 2024 ruling confirmed that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza was unlawful. Shaw said it had taken the United Kingdom more than two years to accept the ruling, adding that it had not brought about any concrete change in Gaza and that London had not taken steps to force Israel to withdraw from Gaza.
Shaw said the strategic partnership between the United Kingdom and Israel was continuing and included military and commercial dimensions. He stressed that the United Kingdom was targeting settlers and companies doing business with them rather than the Israeli state or government.
Shaw argued that political pressure in the United Kingdom could force the government to take further steps in the future. He said criticism of the government over Gaza from the Green Party and the Labour Party’s left wing could have political consequences ahead of the upcoming general election.
Shaw said Israel’s entry ban on 12 British lawmakers was also largely symbolic, noting that the lawmakers were members of the Green Party, the Labour Party’s left wing or were independent politicians.
Countermeasures against the United Kingdom
Twelve countries, led by the United Kingdom, France and Canada, took steps to ban trade and business dealings with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. The government in London said Israel’s tender for the E1 settlement in the West Bank undermined the prospect of a two-state solution.
Tensions between the United Kingdom and Israel rose after the decision. The authorities in Tel Aviv took a series of countermeasures, including closing the British Consulate General in occupied East Jerusalem.
