LONDON — Ed Miliband announced Britain’s plans for “comprehensive measures” against Israeli settlements in the West Bank last week. Gideon Sa’ar’s response on Monday was unambiguous: act on those plans, and Israel will respond.
“If Britain acts against Israel, Israel will act against Britain,” Israel’s foreign minister said in remarks as first reported in coverage of the exchange, adding that he would not specify what form that response would take. “There are tools,” he said. “I’m saying this clearly and unequivocally.”
Sa’ar declined to elaborate. His vagueness is not accidental. An undefined threat is a coercive tool that allows Israel to leave open a range of possible responses, from expelling British diplomatic staff from Gaza coordination centers to broader trade or security retaliations, without committing to any of them.
What prompted the statement was a specific announcement from Miliband, Britain’s foreign secretary, who said London was preparing a “comprehensive set of measures” targeting Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. Among the options Miliband outlined was a potential ban on trade in goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements, a measure that would align British policy more closely with long-standing EU practice.
Sa’ar had already issued a private warning to Miliband before going public on Monday. According to Israeli officials, that warning included the possibility of expelling British officials from coordination centers in Gaza, facilities that the UK and other European governments use to support humanitarian access in the territory. The threat, if carried out, would put British aid operations at risk as a bargaining chip for settlement immunity.
The immediate flashpoint is E1: a strategically located stretch of West Bank land east of Jerusalem where Israel issued tenders last month for 1,200 new housing units, as part of a larger 3,000-unit project. The E1 corridor has long been identified by international observers as a potential obstacle to a future Palestinian state, because its development would physically separate the northern and southern West Bank. Miliband called the project “unacceptable and destructive.”
That division among European powers has given Israel diplomatic maneuvering room. London’s willingness to move toward actual sanctions, rather than stop at condemnation, appears to have changed the calculus in Jerusalem.
Sa’ar’s threat on Monday represents something qualitatively different from past Israeli warnings. Israel has long objected to European positions on settlements, but direct public threats of retaliation against a specific ally have been rare. British officials, speaking on background, described the statement as “unprecedented in its directness,” language that signals London is taking it seriously even if no formal response has been issued.
The threat exposes a tension that has been building in Israeli-European relations for months. Europe has increasingly moved toward treating settlement expansion not as an obstacle to a peace process that no longer exists in any meaningful form, but as a sanctionable practice in its own right, a violation of international law that comes with measurable consequences. Israel’s position has been the inverse: settlements are a domestic matter, and external pressure on them constitutes interference in Israeli sovereignty.
Sa’ar made explicit what was previously implied: that Israel views accountability for settlements as a hostile act deserving a counter-response.
What London does next is the open question. The UK has genuine economic and security relationships with Israel. British officials from Gaza coordination centers are providing logistical support for aid operations inside a territory where over a million people remain displaced. Using those officials as leverage against their own government’s policy is an unusual escalation, even by the standards of Middle East diplomacy.
Sa’ar declined to specify his timeline or the precise triggers that would prompt a response. That is the point. The threat is designed to function as a deterrent, to introduce enough uncertainty into the British calculation that Miliband’s “comprehensive measures” never fully materialize, or materialize in a diluted form that Jerusalem can absorb.
Whether it works depends on whether London concludes that the cost of backing down exceeds the cost of Israeli retaliation. That calculation has not yet been made publicly. What Sa’ar has ensured is that it will be made.
Related Posts
