The UK’s decision to ban trade and business ties with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank has been criticized in terms of international law and Britain’s policy toward Israel.
Dr. Shahd Hammouri, an international law expert at the City Law School, said Israeli settlements had been unlawful since the day they were established. Hammouri said states’ obligation not to trade with these settlements was based on the principle of non-recognition.
Hammouri said Israeli companies operating in the area used water and land resources, adding that the expansion of the settlements had created an unequal system that hindered the economic development of Palestinians.
Hammouri said the UK’s obligation to refrain from trading with the settlements had arisen long ago and criticized the fact that the ban was only now being implemented. Arguing that the decision remained at a minimum level, Hammouri said the UK had not taken steps to create economic deterrence against Israel.
According to Hammouri, a comprehensive trade ban should cover not only settlement products but also weapons, energy and financial infrastructure. She said this obligation arose from the International Court of Justice ruling that found Israel’s presence in the West Bank and Gaza unlawful, as well as from the obligation to prevent genocide.
Hammouri also pointed to a report by UN Special Rapporteur on Palestine Francesca Albanese on the responsibilities of third states, which said that many states had failed to fulfill their obligations. Hammouri said Palestinians were seeking compensation in British courts over Israel’s violations, but that these cases were progressing slowly because of political reluctance and the limited availability of legal avenues.
Hammouri said demonstrations in the UK against the occupation and attacks in Gaza had continued with the participation of more than one million people. She argued that the government’s decision represented a step aimed at public opinion and voters rather than a policy change. She also said Israel’s public threats against British officials were a cause for concern for British citizens.
Britain’s policy toward Israel
Martin Shaw, Emeritus Professor of International Relations and Politics at the University of Sussex, said the International Court of Justice’s 2024 ruling had confirmed that Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza was unlawful.
Shaw said it had taken the UK more than two years to accept the ruling, adding that the decision had not produced a concrete change in Gaza. He also said the UK had not taken steps to force Israel to withdraw from Gaza.
Shaw said the strategic partnership between the UK and Israel remained in place and had military and commercial dimensions. He stressed that the UK was targeting settlers and companies doing business with them, rather than the Israeli state or government.
Shaw argued that political pressure in the UK 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 forthcoming general election.
Shaw said Israel’s entry ban on 12 British lawmakers was also largely symbolic, adding that the lawmakers belonged to the Green Party, Labour’s left wing and the independent political camp.
Reciprocal measures
Twelve countries, led by the UK, France and Canada, took steps to ban trade and business ties with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. The government in London said Israel’s publication of a tender for the E1 settlement in the West Bank undermined the prospect of a two-state solution.
Tensions between the UK and Israel increased following the decision. The authorities in Tel Aviv took a series of countermeasures, including closing the British Consulate General in occupied East Jerusalem.
