- Dr. Blerim Mustafa serves as Advisory Vice-Rector at the Geneva Nations Institute (Switzerland) and is the author of the book Remedial Secession After the Cold War (2026, BRILL)
On Sep. 8, 2026, the UK Foreign Secretary Edward Miliband announced at the House of Commons the decision of the UK government to curb trade involving Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank in light of, inter alia, the “ethnic cleansing of Palestinians” perpetrated by occupiers. Furthermore, Miliband condemned the impunity and injustice under which Israeli settlers were operating, stating that the “Israeli government had turned a blind eye” to the forced displacement, abuses and violations inflicted on the Palestinian population.
UK trade ban and international legal consensus
The UK trade ban was announced amidst a series of similar political measures taken in September this year by a host of Western countries to restrict commercial relations with Israeli settlements. Moreover, since April 2024, nearly 20 states have bestowed Palestine with political recognition confirming their commitment to a two-state solution and the growing international support for an independent Palestinian state.
Under international law, Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank remain illegal as ruled by, inter alia, the International Court of Justice in its Advisory Opinion of July 19, 2024 on Palestine. Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention explicitly forbids occupying powers from undertaking any measures to alter and modify the demographics of the population in occupied territories. The existence and continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank have repeatedly been condemned by the UN, its member states and its related bodies including the UN Security Council and UN General Assembly.
The UK trade ban decision was not taken lightly in Israel. The Israeli government swiftly ordered the closure of the British Consulate-General in East Jerusalem – which ironically remains an occupied territory – within 30 days. Additional retaliatory measures were introduced which included among others the removal of UK personnel from the US-led International Gaza Support Center, the termination of British involvement in the training of Palestinian Authority security forces, and entry bans on selected British officials and citizens.
Notwithstanding the tit-for-tat approach of the Israeli government, it was reported by numerous Israeli media agencies, including the Times of Israel, that David Zini, the head of the Israeli security agency Shin Bet, proposed during what was reported as a “heated meeting” with Israeli Minister of Settlements and National Projects Orit Strock to place occupier groups in administrative detention in an attempt to address the rise of indiscriminate attacks targeting Palestinian communities and civilians.
A signal ahead of the October elections
Against this background, the progressive downgrading of relations between Israel and European countries signals a growing international political consensus that the existence and expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank adversely affect the prospects of advancing peace and stability in the Middle East and addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict peacefully and pursuant to UN Security Council resolutions.
It is in this context that the European trade bans come at a critical moment; they send an important signal to Tel Aviv and the Israeli public – ahead of the 2026 Israeli general elections planned for 27 October – that the country must change political course and orientation. One could have argued that the UK should have introduced reciprocal measures against Israel, given its retaliatory actions against London; but wouldn’t such an approach embolden the current Israeli government and give it a political impetus to mobilize popular support – prior to the general elections – in a last-resort attempt to stand united as a country against growing international antagonism?
Regardless of whether the UK should have played tit-for-tat or not, Israel runs the risk of finding itself politically isolated internationally owing to its illegal settlement policies – and the rift between the head of Shin Bet and Strock could be indicative of growing discontent among security officials with the current government.
As we are reminded in the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, a viable state must have access to, inter alia, a defined territory. The scale of destruction of the Gaza Strip has made the territory uninhabitable; it will take years, if not decades, to rebuild and restore living conditions in Gaza.
For the Palestinians, the viable heartland of an independent state as of right now, remains the West Bank. Without complete access to it, Palestine will remain a state only in name. The gradual and de facto annexation of the West Bank – through its illegal settlements and outposts scattered across the territory – means the end of the State of Palestine. Trade bans may be symbolic, but the reality on the ground frustrates any hope of a principled and just settlement of the Palestinian question.
*Opinions expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Anadolu.
