Britain once governed Palestine. How much say can it now have in the territory’s future? Israel’s decision to close the British consulate in East Jerusalem has brought that question into sharp focus for London. Its response to Britain’s sanctions against illegal settlements targets British ties with the Palestinians and British activities in the region.
The dispute escalated with the measures London announced on 8 September. The British government said it would ban imports of goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and impose sanctions on individuals and companies supporting their establishment and expansion. Its stated rationale is that settlement expansion and violence against Palestinians are making a two-state solution increasingly unattainable.
Alongside the consulate’s closure, Israel announced that British training of Palestinian security forces would end and that Britain would be excluded from the Gaza coordination mechanism. The Israeli government described the British sanctions as an infringement of its sovereignty and an attempt to influence the forthcoming elections.
The Contest to Shape Palestine’s Future
Understanding Britain’s approach requires a look at its history in Palestine. Through the Balfour Declaration of 1917, London supported the establishment of a “national home” for the Jewish people in Palestine. Under the subsequent British Mandate, which lasted until 1948, it became the dominant power shaping the region’s political future. Yet British interests did not always align with the Zionist movement’s objectives. Restrictions on Jewish immigration also led to clashes between the British authorities and armed Zionist groups.
Today, London and the Israeli government have different ambitions for Palestine’s future. Britain explicitly states that it wants to maintain trade with Israel while advocating economic pressure on illegal settlements. London seeks to persuade the Israeli government to change its policy without severing relations, while preserving the conditions needed for the establishment of a Palestinian state.
This approach can also be understood in terms of Britain’s regional interests. As Palestinian territory in the West Bank becomes increasingly fragmented, the two-state solution London has championed for years risks existing only on paper. Weaker Palestinian institutions could also diminish the influence Britain has built through diplomatic ties and security cooperation. For London, keeping the prospect of a political settlement alive is therefore also a way of retaining a say in the region’s future.
Israel’s response targets precisely these sources of influence. The consulate, security training and coordination work on Gaza give Britain a direct role in Palestinian affairs. Blocking those activities could make it harder for London to maintain sanctions while preserving its influence in the region. Israel’s actions can thus be read as a warning that exerting pressure on it carries a diplomatic cost.
For Israel, the main risk is that the sanctions spread to other countries. Goods produced in illegal settlements account for only a small share of its exports, but announcements of similar measures by France and Canada raise the diplomatic stakes. As more countries adopt this approach, maintaining Israel’s settlement policy could put growing strain on relations with its Western partners. Yet the approaching elections could encourage the government to harden its stance rather than back down. A government seeking to rally voters by demonstrating its defiance of external pressure may be less willing to take steps to ease tensions with Britain.
Britain, meanwhile, is coming up against the limits of its own power as it seeks to influence Israeli decisions. European countries taking a similar position face the same constraints. As Europe helps fund Gaza’s reconstruction, will it also have a say in how the territory is governed after the war?
