Israeli settlement expansion, land appropriation, and escalating settler violence in the occupied West Bank represent some of the most outstanding obstacles to realizing a sovereign Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel, a long-standing pillar of the UK’s Middle East policy.
As such, the new Labour government under Prime Minister Andy Burnham should prohibit UK trade with Israel’s illegal settlements. This step would align UK trade with international law, uphold the UK’s recognition of Palestinian statehood, and stop sustaining the worsening situation in the West Bank – which I witnessed first-hand during a fieldwork visit this summer.
The rationale for such a move is clear. As successive UK governments have long acknowledged, Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, are illegal under international law. They violate Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which holds that an ‘occupying power shall not transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.’
A decade ago United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016), which the UK supported, affirmed that settlements have no legal validity, and a landmark 2024 Advisory Opinion from the International Court of Justice obliged states to ‘take steps to prevent trade or investment relations’ that help sustain illegal settlements.
Such advisory opinions are not binding, but settlements represent one of the most significant barriers to realizing a contiguous Palestinian state. Since Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan in the 1967 war, it has constructed more than 160 settlements that are now home to over 700,000 Israelis in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, according to Peace Now, an Israeli human rights organization that monitors settlement activity.
Israel’s justification for settlement construction has varied through the years – from security strategy to economic interest to religious ideology, citing biblical and historical ties to the land. But as Israeli ministers have recently stated, at least part of the aim of the current settlement project is to ‘bury the idea of a Palestinian state.’
E1
This intention has been most evident in the opening of tenders for the controversial E1 development.
E1 would link Jerusalem and the large settlement of Ma’ale Adumim, thus preventing Palestinian sovereignty in the central corridor connecting Ramallah, Bethlehem, and East Jerusalem, effectively bisecting the West Bank. E1 is particularly contentious due to its location, and the UK, along with France, Germany, Italy, and Canada, have condemned it.
But nearly all settlements create so-called ‘facts on the ground’ by appropriating Palestinian land and constructing infrastructure to serve settlers, including a network of bypass roads that are off limits to Palestinians. This infrastructure is accompanied by a system of more than 900 checkpoints, gates, barriers, and roadblocks.
The Israeli justification is that they are for settlers’ security, but they severely restrict Palestinian movement within the West Bank. For example, a 36-km journey from Ramallah to Nablus now requires a 73-km route to skirt around settlements – and can take hours due to checkpoints and closures. On shared roads, settlers have lined the pavement with Israeli flags, blacked out the Arabic writing on road signs with spray paint, and erected billboards reading ‘There is no future in Palestine.’
As a young woman in Nablus told me in July, ‘It emphasizes the idea that you are not getting out of this.’ She and many other young people I met no longer travel to Ramallah for work, school, or socializing as they would have done in the past for fear of being detained at checkpoints or harassed by settlers.
Additionally, 390 Israeli farms and outposts have been developed without state permission throughout the West Bank, with 250 established in the past three years. These settlements are technically considered illegal under Israeli law, but only two have been evicted, and over 80 have been legalized. Settler leaders have openly stated that the outposts aim to give them a foothold in strategic Palestinian locations, increasingly in Areas A and B, which would constitute the core population centres in a future Palestinian state.
Meanwhile, over 100 Palestinian communities have been partially or fully displaced by violent settler attacks since 2023, with over 1,330 incidents documented in 2026 alone. I visited the sites of several villages in the Jordan Valley that have been destroyed. In Hamamat al-Maleh, all that remains of a school built with EU-donor funding is a pile of rubble, with children’s workbooks still visible in the dirt.
With the current Israeli government either minimizing or enabling the violence, there is near- total impunity for such attacks; of the few incidents investigated, less than 5 per cent result in charges or convictions. Settler terrorism is not new, but the acceleration of attacks over the past three years has been unprecedented. It has had the intended effect of pushing rural Palestinian residents into towns and villages, largely emptying the surrounding areas, and further imperiling the realization of a Palestinian state.
Given these ever-worsening realities, the time is ripe to prohibit trade with settlements. Spain, Ireland, Belgium, and the Netherlands have already approved similar bans, and France has called for the EU to end imports of settlement goods.
Moreover, the proposed policy is a natural extension of current UK positions. The British government already denies preferential tariffs to settlement goods and strongly advises against business deals with settlements, and Parliament’s cross-party Foreign Affairs Committee has recommended a formal ban for over a year. Public opinion polls also suggest widespread support for the policy.
‘Siege mentality’
Nevertheless, there are concerns that should be taken seriously. Labour Friends of Israel (LFI), argues that the trade ban could result in a ‘de facto boycott’ of all of Israel because many Israeli companies are inextricably linked to settlements via financial integration or supply chains.
But under the existing UK-Israel Free Trade Agreement, the UK and Israel are already required to differentiate between goods produced in settlements and those produced within Israel.
LFI has also expressed concern that a ban could hurt opposition parties in Israel’s upcoming elections by contributing to a ‘siege mentality’ encouraged by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
It is true that a ban on services (such as banking, insurance, telecommunications, technology, tourism, and consulting) would be harder to regulate. But, despite the wishes of some advocates, it is likely that the initial policy will be limited to goods. Moreover, if services are included, the onus will be on Israeli firms to extricate themselves from entanglements that directly or indirectly support settlements.
Other advocacy groups worry that the policy could increase antisemitism against British Jews. There has been an alarming rise in antisemitic incidents in the UK in the past year, and these should be fully condemned.
But taking a stance against settlement trade is neither antisemitic nor anti-Israel – even if the current Israeli government tries to portray it as such. The focus on settlements is targeted and specific, and in no way delegitimizes the state of Israel as it is recognized along pre-1967 borders.
Reprisals
There are also political repercussions to consider. Israel is already considering the removal of British and European officials from the US-led coordination center for Gaza, and some fear the move could spark economic retaliation from US President Donald Trump. Those concerns are warranted, but Burnham should not be cowed by threats of reprisals.
One of the toughest challenges in international relations is balancing between interests and values. Prohibiting UK trade with Israeli settlements does not fall into that category. The UK has a strategic interest, a legal obligation, and a moral duty to stop supporting unlawful settlements that undermine efforts for future peace and security in the region.