The British Labour government has finally moved from words to action regarding Israel. Even before stepping across the threshold of Downing Street, the new Prime Minister admitted that the previous Labour government, led by Keir Starmer, failed to rise to the level of the tragedy in Gaza, stressing that what transpired will remain a "scar on our collective conscience."
This admission was followed by a speech in the House of Commons by his Foreign Secretary, Ed Miliband, in which he described the events in Gaza as amounting to genocide, and deemed the settlement policy in the West Bank unacceptable, labeling the settlers as "terrorists." Miliband did not stop there. He followed it with a series of economic measures, preceded by a series of sanctions on settlers to whom the description of "terrorism" applies due to their violation of humanitarian and international laws in occupied territories.
The sanctions came at a time when Israel believed it was immune to any critique carrying real harm, never imagining that Britain, the largest contributor to the creation of the State of Israel, would utter the phrase "amounts to genocide" or accuse Israeli authorities of remaining silent on settler violence. Notably, Miliband is Jewish, rendering any accusation of antisemitism against him meaningless, while his stance toward Netanyahu's government indicates that it has crossed all red lines, whether political or moral.
This stance in particular can be understood given the British Prime Minister's left-wing background and his staunch support for Israel's existence and security. However, amid the ongoing developments, he believes the Netanyahu government deserves a "clip on the ear" because its settlement policy violates international law, which criminalizes the annexation of occupied territories, and because of practices that violate the rights of the population in those lands.
While the Prime Minister's stance carries moral weight, it is also driven by domestic political calculations. This comes after it became clear to him that the Starmer government's position on Gaza cost the party seats in traditionally secure Labour constituencies. Furthermore, he recognizes that for Britain to adopt a principled foreign policy - even a relative one - he must oppose violations that are entirely unjustifiable. This is particularly critical given that Britain originally facilitated Israel’s presence in Palestine and continues to provide the country with weapons and diplomatic backing in international forums.
Consequently, Israel finds itself grappling with a dual moral and political crisis for the first time, even as it operates with unprecedented military hubris. Israel has long boasted of being a peaceful nation, the only democracy in the region, and the most respectful of human rights; however, it has now revealed itself as a predatory beast that places no value on principles or treaties. Its reputation has shattered, leaving a damage that cannot be mended without an extraordinary effort.
Across the West, public opinion polls indicate that support for Israel has plunged to unprecedented lows. A Pew Research Center survey showed that 80 percent of American Democrats hold a negative view of Israel, while a Gallup poll revealed that 65 percent of Democrats sympathize with the Palestinians, compared to just 17 percent who favor Israel. Although Republicans continue to back Israel, this support is largely confined to demographics over fifty; among younger cohorts, Republican support drops to 57 percent.
These figures deeply trouble decision-makers in Israel and create even greater concern among its Western allies. The political shifting of these numbers is driving Western governments to abandon their historical stance of blind support and openly criticize Israeli policies. This shift occurs because the domestic political cost they once feared has diminished; instead, penalizing and criticizing Israel has become politically advantageous. It is within this context that the recent British stance can be understood, alongside similar measures from influential European nations like France, Italy, and Spain, whose governments have enacted policies targeting the settlement economies and imposed sanctions on individual figures, including some holding ministerial portfolios.
Despite their significance, these sanctions remain largely symbolic and have failed to alter the behavior of the Israeli government. Reacting to the measures, Israel's Foreign Minister dismissed Miliband's remarks as "outrageous lies," asserting that foreign governments have no right to restrict Jews from living in Israel.
This Israeli indignation does not stem from Miliband’s actual remarks, which were measured and carefully calculated; in fact, the Foreign Secretary opposed calls from 170 civil organizations demanding "Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions" (BDS) to force a capitulation similar to that of the South African apartheid regime. Instead, Israel's irritation is driven by newfound European boldness, the willingness to contemplate soft sanctions, and the potential for these measures to expand beyond the occupied territories into the heart of the state of Israel itself. This escalation is what Israel genuinely fears, explaining the fierce response motivated by the dread of facing the same fate as the former apartheid regime in South Africa.
Since a comprehensive European boycott remains unlikely because it would threaten Israel’s existence and economic security, Israel will see no justification to halt settlement expansion. Consequently, Europe will continue to threaten limited sanctions, Israel will persist in its expansion, and Palestinians will continue to face violence and displacement. Over time, no land will remain for the establishment of a Palestinian state, unless massive international pressure is applied.
