Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, November/December 2026, p. 31
Three Views: Ed Miliband, UK’s Settlement Trade Decision—What Does It Mean?
By Diana Safieh
ON SEPTEMBER 8, Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband announced to the House of Commons that Britain would ban imports from illegal Israeli settlements. But before he did this, before he reiterated the International Court of Justice Advisory Opinion that Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful, and before talking about ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, Miliband spent considerable time establishing something else: his affection for Israel.
Perhaps the move to finally ban settlement trade required a foreign secretary who identifies as “a proud British Jew.” Perhaps it needed someone who used to visit his grandmother in Tel Aviv and spent summers picking oranges on the kibbutz where his cousins lived.
Miliband stresses that banning settlement trade is not meant to target Israel, just the (state-sanctioned) settlements. Surely Miliband was not naive enough to think Israel would accept this distinction as readily? Nor would they care for the argument that this was an attempt to salvage a two-state solution, having proven time and time again that Israel will never permit the emergence of a Palestinian state.
Yet again, statements about Israel and Palestinian rights are introduced with a lengthy preamble of loyalty to Israel. Even Jewish Miliband feels the need to insist that he is “unwavering in my support of the state of Israel.” But if support for Palestinian human rights and international law is interpreted as inherently anti-Israel, surely that raises an uncomfortable question: why does support for human rights and international law have to be defended as not inherently hostile to Israel?
A British minister should not have to preface with a declaration of undying love for Israel before stating that Palestinians should not be dispossessed of their land or denied their fundamental rights. Nor should those rights need to be justified on the grounds that respecting them will ultimately be good for Israel. A right does not depend on whether someone else benefits from it.
That is the uncomfortable discourse beneath the Miliband speech.
And what did Miliband actually announce in his package? That Britain intended to ban all imports from illegal settlements and that there would be repercussions against companies and individuals involved in settlement construction, infrastructure, financing and real estate. This was accompanied by an international statement from the UK, Canada, France and nine other governments confirming their intention to do the same.
This shift is welcome because it begins to translate recognition of the state of Palestine (more than a year on) into policy.
Miliband’s “unwavering” support for Israel as a Jewish man makes this move harder to caricature as anti-Semitism. He argued that support for Israel and support for Palestine are not contradictory. He condemned the Israeli government’s August tender for the E1 settlement plan as “unacceptable and destructive” and would endanger the viability of a Palestinian state.
The E1 plan is designed to connect the Ma’ale Adumim settlement with East Jerusalem. It would complete the encirclement of Jerusalem with Israeli settlements and create a wedge separating the northern and southern West Bank. Its purpose is political: to fragment the territory, making the creation of a Palestinian state on contiguous territory impossible.
The most significant sentence in Miliband’s speech was this: “The government believes the unlawfulness of the occupation should be reflected in the economic relationships we choose to have with the occupied territories.”
That is indeed the principle to uphold. If Britain recognizes Palestine (which it formally did in September 2025) and regards the occupation as unlawful, it cannot go on trading with the illegal settlements. And E1 has added urgency.
Miliband’s package may be dismissed as irrelevant or mistaken for the fulfillment of Britain’s obligations. But what could be done immediately is to stop treating Palestinian rights as a proposition requiring an Israeli footnote. Palestinians should possess rights without reference to Israeli security or anti-Semitism.
Palestinians’ right to freedom does not depend on whether Israelis feel threatened by the prospect.
Diana Safieh is a writer and podcaster with expertise in Palestine, true crime and social justice. Her website is <www.dianasafieh.com>. She currently works with the Britain Palestine Project.
(Advertisement)
