Should the international community sanction Israel over settler violence in West Bank?

As a (secular) Jew, I do feel that we cannot have it both ways. We cannot support Israel in whatever they do and then claim antisemitism when others conflate Israel and Judaism.

Importantly, I think Israel has failed secular and even liberal Jews by becoming more and more religious and hardline. That just wasn’t what Israel was during the 20th and even part of the early 21st century.

I do think that the diaspora does have a duty to call Israel out when they behave egregiously. Otherwise, how can we criticise the Moslem community for not calling out 7/10 and 9/11 sufficiently.

Supporting Israel’s right to exist (which I do wholeheartedly) is very different from supporting what its current government is doing.

I think that a lot of the Jewish community reflexively support Israel and try to invent justifications for what they are doing, rather than genuinely trying to find out, and criticising when appropriate.

Things are slowly changing, though. Plenty of the Jewish community are not criticising Israel’s actions and saying ‘not in my name’.

Some do, some don't.

Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis has condemned the sanctions against Israeli settlements in the West Bank, calling it a “dark day for British Jews”.

“Today our government has chosen to ignore the deep concerns expressed by so many of us.

“The measures announced amount to little more than political flag-bearing for mendacious anti-Israel rhetoric and those who harbour a dangerous obsession with the Jewish State. These measures will succeed only in bolstering the very extremism they seek to target.

“On the eve of Rosh Hashanah and at a time when our community is more vulnerable than ever to the wave of extremism that has been building over recent years, these sanctions do nothing to advance the cause of peace. Nor do they make anyone safer – quite the contrary.

“Gesture politics of this kind feeds into an increasingly hostile discourse about Israel, and the cumulative effect of such punitive policies is to further embolden those, at home and abroad, who use hatred as a weapon against Jews.”

His concerns were echoed by other Jewish communal groups, with the Board of Deputies saying: “As proud Brits who love our country, and who also have deep religious, cultural and family ties to Israel, we feel a deep sense of anguish about this breakdown in relations.

https://www.thejc.com/news/politics/dark-day-british-jews-chief-rabbi-sanctions-west-bank-settlements-kmlxgfpt

UK senior rabbis approve the government action. The howls of anti semitism are exposed.

@Ipsevenenabibas,

‘Where I draw the line for much broader action against Israel is if it becomes clear that the Israeli state is deliberately and systematically pursuing the forced removal of Palestinians from the West Bank as a policy objective. I appreciate that you think the evidence already demonstrates that; I'm just not convinced it does, particularly when it comes to establishing state intent.’

Let’s start with Ben G’vir. Now, he isn’t just some random MP, he is minister for national security, a senior cabinet position. I think it is fair to say that his voice represents the government line, especially when not contradicted by Netanyahu.

‘Ben-Gvir doesn’t just want to hang his enemies; he wants more bloodshed in Gaza – which is still very much a killing field despite a so-called ceasefire. “I think we should be doing 30 to 40 targeted assassinations [in Gaza] per night,” Ben-Gvir recently said on a podcast. “Not just those who pose an immediate threat. There are people there who don’t deserve to live … They are not even people’

‘Ben Gvir dubbed the scheme “Disengagement 710” — a reference to both Israel’s 2005 disengagement from Gaza and the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led massacre, for which many on the Israeli right have partly blamed the withdrawal. It seeks the removal of 250,000 Gazans in its first year, 1.11 million within three years and 1.86 million within seven. Gaza’s population is estimated at some 2.3 million.
“Instead of illusions of peace now, we need actions of emigration now,” Ben Gvir said. “Instead of [Gazans] digging tunnels, it’s time to pack suitcases.”’

Both of the above are reliably sourced, happy to provide references if required.

Now let’s move on to Smotrich. And let’s remind ourselves, he is also not some kind of rogue, he is the actual minister in charge of the West Bank, another relatively senior government position.

‘The Annexation Strategy Behind the Attacks
Bezalel Smotrich, the minister in charge of the West Bank, has repeatedly called for annexing the West Bank and forcibly displacing its Palestinian residents, stating plainly that “the overriding principle for applying sovereignty [to the West Bank] is maximum territory with minimum Arabs.” Smotrich, a settler who was arrested in 2005 on suspicion of planning to blow up an Israeli highway to protest Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza, has also been explicitabout the far-right’s ultimate goal: “We will apply sovereignty over the West Bank, initially through actions on the ground and subsequently through legislation and formal recognition.”
Smotrich’

jstreet.org/maximum-territory-with-minimum-arabs-how-israels-far-right-government-uses-settler-violence-to-pave-the-way-for-annexation/

And here is Israel’s defence minister, Katz on the solution to Gaza.

’Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz admitted this week that Israel’s goal for Gaza is the mass expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza in “every way possible,” despite denying allegations of ethnic cleansing for years.

‘“There is no real solution for Gaza in the end without this migration,” Katz said at a conference hosted by Israeli outlet Yedioth Ahronoth on Wednesday, per a translation by France 24. Israel “is organized and prepared to get them out — by sea, by air, by every way possible.”’

I think that it is now very hard to deny that ethnic cleansing is pretty much Israeli state policy, although Netanyahu most of the time won’t explicitly confirm it. But nor will he deny what these ministers are saying or sack them. In how many other countries would you shrug if senior ministers spoke like that.

‘I also think Britain needs to be conscious of the limits of its role. We have responsibilities under international law and legitimate interests in the region, but that doesn't mean every serious injustice necessarily requires Britain to escalate its involvement or fundamentally damage an important strategic relationship.’

I kind of agree here, but we are not doing this alone. France and Canada are with us as well as the Global South. We are still a significant nation in the world and should take some moral leadership.

(I would say your comment applies much more to Ukraine, where we seem to want to lead the fight against Russia with our comments and money, which is very much against our national interests, when we aren’t close, like Poland or Germany nor powerful like America or China)

I accept that there is independent evidence and I'm not suggesting that everything happening in the West Bank is unknowable. There are clearly incidents that can be corroborated through multiple sources, and I wouldn't dismiss that evidence simply because access is restricted.

My point is more about the limits of what we can confidently conclude from the information reaching us. Even supposedly independent organisations have to rely on witnesses, local sources, open-source material and sometimes claims from one side or the other. The fact that a source is reputable doesn't make it infallible or completely free from bias.

So for me, critical thinking doesn't mean saying “we know nothing” or "we know everything". It means distinguishing between what is well established, what is strongly evidenced, and what remains disputed. I can acknowledge and condemn documented attacks against Israelis without automatically accepting every allegation made against Israel, just as I can acknowledge documented abuses by Israel without automatically accepting every allegation made against Palestinians.

That's why I'm reluctant to condemn Israel outright based on a particular narrative. I'd rather remain sceptical of all sides and change my view when the evidence warrants it. I think that's a more genuinely critical approach than simply deciding in advance which side's sources are trustworthy.

@OpenScroller ,

‘Attacks against Israelis in the West Bank including stone-throwing, firebombs, stabbings, assaults and other attacks.’

Given Israel’s reluctance to allow the media unfettered access to the West Bank, how on earth do we know the truth of that? Aside from the fact, this is illegally settled territory in the first place.

‘We never hear about this in the MSM.’

Probably because the MSM needs to verify stories and they can’t. As opposed to pro-Israel (and probably Israel funded) propaganda channels on YouTube that I suspect you use as your source.

‘This has all blown up since attention on the war in Gaza has cooled down and propaganda opportunities have depleted.
Now the propaganda war has moved to the West Bank.’

And who actually spends the most on influencing the Media, Israel or her enemies? Israel has a pretty slick propaganda machine.

You need to stop fawning at Israel’s feet and start to think critically, especially if you are actually a true friend of a Israel in the long term.

267 stone-throwing incidents?

Wonder why they threw stones?

Must have been terrifying for the IDF.

Amazed they found time for the admin after a hard day supporting setters terrorising Palestinian families out of their homes so that they could steal them.

Israel isn't only fighting Hamas.

There are multiple terrorist entities in the West Bank (including Hamas), the same as in Gaza - Hamas is not the only terrorist group there either.

There are almost daily attacks on Jews in the West Bank too. In July in a community of 100 people - 30 homes and businesses were burnt down by suspected Palestinian arson (there are eyewitnesses) and there's been multiple poisonings of Jewish farmers cattle by Palestinians.

Attacks against Israelis in the West Bank including stone-throwing, firebombs, stabbings, assaults and other attacks.

In the April 2026 figures alone there were 325 terror attacks - 23 firebomb attacks, nine pipe-bomb attacks, 21 arson/tire-burning, four stabbing attacks, 267 stone-throwing incidents and an IED attack.

That data excludes most daily riots, rock-throwing and Molotov-cocktail incidents where nobody was injured.

We never hear about this in the MSM.

Miliband never made any mention of this either. I do find that pretty damning tbh.

This has all blown up since attention on the war in Gaza has cooled down and propaganda opportunities have depleted.

Now the propaganda war has moved to the West Bank.

It's strange nobody seems to see that.

@Ipsevenenabibas ’Where I draw the line for much broader action against Israel is if it becomes clear that the Israeli state is deliberately and systematically pursuing the forced removal of Palestinians from the West Bank as a policy objective. I appreciate that you think the evidence already demonstrates that; I'm just not convinced it does, particularly when it comes to establishing state intent’.

I wonder how extreme the violence and rhetoric would need to go before you believe their intent? What would convince you?

’I also think Britain needs to be conscious of the limits of its role.

This hyper awareness - fear? is what has held Britain back thus far. However, a stand must be taken, as against any bully, and Britain has at least made this first step of calling it out.

Thank you. I agree that Israel shouldn't have free rein to do whatever it likes, but I think the context matters too. Israel is fighting Hamas, an organisation that deliberately targets civilians and has shown little regard for the laws of armed conflict. That's a very different situation from judging Israel's actions as though this were a conventional, symmetrical conflict.

That doesn't mean Israel is exempt from international law, or that everything can be justified by Hamas. There absolutely have to be limits. But I do think Israel has a legitimate security problem that needs to be taken seriously when assessing its actions and deciding what level of pressure Britain should apply.

As for my line, I don't mean I need some completely undeniable smoking gun before I'd support action. I accept there is very serious evidence of Palestinian displacement, settlement expansion, settler violence and Israeli state involvement, and I think some targeted action is justified already.

Where I draw the line for much broader action against Israel is if it becomes clear that the Israeli state is deliberately and systematically pursuing the forced removal of Palestinians from the West Bank as a policy objective. I appreciate that you think the evidence already demonstrates that; I'm just not convinced it does, particularly when it comes to establishing state intent.

I also think Britain needs to be conscious of the limits of its role. We have responsibilities under international law and legitimate interests in the region, but that doesn't mean every serious injustice necessarily requires Britain to escalate its involvement or fundamentally damage an important strategic relationship.

I think that Israel are way past my line, which is something I never imagined would happen having grown up with a loyalty to Israel and having had relatives living there.

But I think the evidence for ethnic cleansing is now overwhelming in the West Bank and the Palestinians in Gaza are now compressed into 1/3 of the area.

Israel has also become clearly racist with people like Ben G’vir and Smotrich openly advocating their divine right to the land and for ethnic cleansing. These are ministers, not random MPs, and they don’t get sacked for it.

I am one of those liberal Jews for whom ‘never again’ is about othering and then persecuting other races/ethnicities, not just Jews.

I always think than Israel should exist and remain Jewish, but that doesn’t give them free rein to do what they like.

So I think sanctions now, and even full sanctions would be appropriate. Not to destroy Israel or permanently alienate them, but to say ‘no more’.

Your line?

I agree that lack of access makes it harder to know exactly what is happening, although I’m wary of assuming that necessarily means the worst is happening.

I think before I give you my precise threshold, it would be useful for you to say clearly where yours is. You’re asking where my line is for tougher action, but I’m not entirely sure what you think the appropriate level of action is now, or what would make you go further.

@Ipsevenenabibas ,

I think that sometimes it is hard to know what precisely is going on in Israel, but I generally think that is Israel’s fault in not allowIng journalists proper access. Which makes me fear that it is really quite bad.

Re settler violence, where would your line be for us to take tougher action?

I don't think I'm arguing for being soft on Israel. I think the difference between us is probably more where we sit on the spectrum in terms of being more sympathetic to Israel or more sympathetic to Palestine.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be consequences when Israel crosses a serious line. There absolutely can be a point where stronger action is justified. I just have a higher threshold for measures that could damage an important relationship, because I put more weight on the strategic value of that relationship than you apparently do.

And I think that's probably the fundamental difference here. You see these measures as a fairly proportionate way of making clear that Israel has crossed a line; I'm more cautious about escalating pressure on a country that I regard as an important British ally, particularly if we're not confident that the measures will actually change its behaviour.

That isn't the same as giving Israel a free pass or saying “lets just have a nice chat”. It's a difference in where we draw the line.

@Ipsevenenabibas ,

‘I think you’re conflating “Israel isn’t economically indispensable” with “the relationship isn’t in Britain’s national interest”. I wasn’t arguing that Britain needs Israel for trade. The value of the relationship is much broader than the $6bn in bilateral trade — intelligence, defence and security cooperation, diplomatic influence, technology and our ability to engage directly with a significant regional power all matter‘

Basically, I agree. I do think Israel has value to us as a strategic ally.

‘And I don’t think recognising those interests requires pretending Netanyahu’s government is behaving acceptably. Quite the opposite: if we think Israeli actions are damaging to British interests or violating principles Britain is committed to defending, then we should say so and use whatever leverage we have.’

Isn’t Milliband’s speech in parliament, and these sanctions-lite doing just that?

‘Where I’m less convinced is the idea that sanctions are inherently the right measure of that balance. If the objective is actually to influence Israeli behaviour, rather than simply demonstrate disapproval, then preserving a relationship in which Britain retains access and influence may be more useful than progressively damaging it.’

These aren’t even proper sanctions, they are just making a clear point that Israel has crossed a line. They are also not being implemented for 6-9 months, giving Israel plenty of chance to change tack. I imagine we have diplomatically been trying to influence Israel for a long time without success before we did this too.

I do think that realpolitik is that trade off. But Trump would have to do a hell of a lot for us to refuse to trade with the U.S, for instance, whereas it is fairly easy to sanction dirt poor countries we hardly trade with.

I feel you kind of are arguing for being soft on Israel! At what point would you suggest that firmer action other than a nice chat is required?

I’m arguing that Britain should be capable of simultaneously condemning actions we regard as unacceptable and recognising that maintaining a functional relationship with Israel remains in our national interest. Those positions aren't contradictory.

Britain has a long history of condemning actions that it finds unacceptable and being completely ignored by Netanyahu.

I think you’re conflating “Israel isn’t economically indispensable” with “the relationship isn’t in Britain’s national interest”. I wasn’t arguing that Britain needs Israel for trade. The value of the relationship is much broader than the $6bn in bilateral trade — intelligence, defence and security cooperation, diplomatic influence, technology and our ability to engage directly with a significant regional power all matter.

And I don’t think recognising those interests requires pretending Netanyahu’s government is behaving acceptably. Quite the opposite: if we think Israeli actions are damaging to British interests or violating principles Britain is committed to defending, then we should say so and use whatever leverage we have.

Where I’m less convinced is the idea that sanctions are inherently the right measure of that balance. If the objective is actually to influence Israeli behaviour, rather than simply demonstrate disapproval, then preserving a relationship in which Britain retains access and influence may be more useful than progressively damaging it.

There’s also a slightly awkward implication in saying that we should put “self-interest ahead of ethics” in some relationships but not others. Foreign policy inevitably involves both. The question is how to reconcile them when they conflict, not pretend one can simply be discarded.

So I’m not arguing for being soft on Israel. I’m arguing that Britain should be capable of simultaneously condemning actions we regard as unacceptable and recognising that maintaining a functional relationship with Israel remains in our national interest. Those positions aren't contradictory.

‘You can condemn actions in the West Bank while still recognising that maintaining a functioning relationship with Israel is in Britain’s national interest.’

That is a pretty tricky trade off. Of course, with certain relationships, we need to put basic self interest ahead of ethics. And I think a lot of countries, including the uk, are doing that with Trump at the moment.

However, the Middle East is more complex. Our total trade with Isreal is only worth $6bio and we do more than this with Saudi, let alone the whole rest of the Middle East. We don’t need Israel as a trading partner, though obviously we’d like that trade to persist.

Israel is, however, historically an ally. But Netanyahu has been expansionist and is very aggressive and borderline racist; he also employs actual racists in his cabinet who have outright called for ethnic cleansing..

The UK is right, with very small limited sanctions, to make clear this isn’t acceptable to us. The Israelis are reacting proportionately with a lot of noise but little real tit-for-tat sanctions on us. That seems well judged to me from Milliband.

You can condemn actions in the West Bank while still recognising that maintaining a functioning relationship with Israel is in Britain’s national interest.

Difficult when Netanyahu doesn't seem to care about maintaining functioning relationships with other countries.

The sanctioning of a whole country would be more powerful, but that isn't what Miliband is proposing to happen in a few months time.

If the limited sanctions influence the election in Israel towards a more moderate government, that's a good thing.

@mids2019 ,

If you take that argument to its logical conclusion, you should never sanction any country.

I think that many Israelis will care deeply that their country is rapidly becoming an international pariah. Definitely not Ben G’vir and Smotrich, who don’t care what the Goyim/philistines think, and maybe not Netanyahu, but plenty of others within Israel take pride in its place in the World.

Not sure these sanctions alone will do much, but if they get traction, they could well influence the election in Israel.

If you agree that the recent settler action, the E1 settlement plan and what Israel are currently doing in Gaza (compressing the Palestinians into a smaller and smaller area) amount to expansionism and ethnic cleansing, then what actions do you believe to be appropriate?

I agree that these limited sanctions will not change the Israeli government's position.

What is far more likely to change the government's position is a new, more moderate government being voted in next month.