West Bank Sanctions Criticised by Baroness Berger as Boost for Netanyahu

The UK government’s decision to impose sanctions on West Bank settlers this week has drawn sharp criticism from Baroness Luciana Berger, a prominent Jewish Labour peer, who has said the move plays straight into the right-wing coalition’s hand in Israel and could hinder attempts to replace Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in the country’s forthcoming election. The sanctions, announced by Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband on Tuesday, restrict goods originating from illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank and were joined by similar measures from France and Canada.

What the Sanctions Entail

The measures announced by Miliband mean that goods originating from illegal settlements in the West Bank will be subject to sanctions in the UK. Settlements are considered illegal under international law, and there has been a documented rise in violence towards Palestinians in the West Bank by settlers in recent months. The announcement sparked anger in Israel and led to the British consulate in East Jerusalem being closed. Miliband defended the decision in an interview with Sky News, saying he regretted what the Israeli government had announced in response but was proud of what the UK had done and believed it was the right thing to do.

The move marked a significant shift in British policy towards Israel and the occupied territories. It was joined by other Western allies, with France and Canada also announcing sanctions — a point that supporters have pointed to as evidence that the UK is not acting alone but as part of a broader international effort to address settler violence and the expansion of illegal settlements.

Baroness Berger’s Intervention

Baroness Berger’s statement, shared with the Sky News Electoral Dysfunction podcast, represents the first time the peer has publicly responded to the sanctions since they were announced. Her criticism focused on the timing and political effect of the measures in Israel, where a general election is due in six weeks and five days.

In her statement, Berger argued that the thing most likely to make the greatest material difference to changing the facts on the ground in Israel — and to improving prospects for peace — would be the replacement of the current coalition government. She pointed to opposition leaders such as Yair Lapid, who have publicly said the sanctions are deeply unhelpful, and to the Yashar party led by Gadi Eisenkot, which is leading in the polls and whose chair has called the E1 settlement plan a mistake and condemned extremist settler violence.

“We have played straight into the right-wing coalition’s hand,” Berger wrote. “It advances Netanyahu’s campaign and makes a potential Netanyahu victory more likely. It weakens the chances of the opposition winning.” Her core argument is that the sanctions could harden support for the right-wing coalition among Israeli voters who see them as external interference, while doing little to shift the positions of opposition parties that are already critical of the government’s settlement policies.

ADVERTISEMENT

Government and Wider Reaction

Harriet Harman told Sky News political editor Beth Rigby that the sanctions demonstrated the “confident activism” of Andy Burnham’s government. She suggested that the difference between Burnham and his predecessor was that he had the right principles and approach but actually followed through on decisions, whereas things had often been blocked or failed to happen under the previous administration.

Rayner herself, speaking on the same day as the sanctions were announced, denied that they had been motivated by the forthcoming by-election in Holborn and St Pancras in central London. She pointed to the fact that France and Canada had also announced sanctions as evidence that the UK’s move was not a domestic political calculation.

Why It Matters

The sanctions represent one of the most significant shifts in UK policy towards Israel and the occupied territories in recent years. They touch on deeply sensitive issues — the legality of settlements under international law, the safety of Palestinian communities in the West Bank, and the UK’s relationship with a key ally. The criticism from a senior Jewish Labour figure adds a new dimension to the debate, suggesting that the sanctions may not have the consensus support among British Jews that the government might have hoped for, and that there are serious arguments about their practical effect on the political dynamics inside Israel.

The closing of the British consulate in East Jerusalem is a practical consequence that will affect diplomatic representation and consular services in the area, and it signals the depth of the Israeli government’s displeasure with the UK’s decision.

What Happens Next

The sanctions are now in effect, and the question for the UK government is whether they achieve their stated aim of addressing settler violence and settlement expansion, or whether — as Baroness Berger and others have argued — they primarily serve to strengthen the political position of the Israeli government they are intended to pressure. The Israeli election in six weeks will provide an early test of that question. In the UK, the sanctions will continue to generate debate within Labour and among British Jewish communities, and the government will be watching the reception of the measures closely.

Source: Sky News