Sanctions, consulate and the Falklands: How the Israel-Britain rift is unfolding Expert opinions on Caliber.Az

Relations between the United Kingdom and Israel have sharply deteriorated following London’s imposition of sanctions on Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

In response, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar announced the closure of the British Consulate in East Jerusalem and a ban on entry for 12 British citizens and MPs. Other European countries have also joined London in imposing sanctions.

How is this crisis being viewed in Israel and the UK?

Israeli and British experts shared their assessments with Caliber.Az.

Political commentator for the Israeli television channel ITON.TV, Alexander Gur-Arye, believes that the sanctions imposed by the UK and several other countries against Israel are primarily aimed at their own electorates, but that their consequences could prove more serious for Britain itself.

“Britain has become the driving force behind this initiative, which has been joined by Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Spain, Ireland, Iceland, Norway, Poland, Portugal and Sweden. At the same time, not all of these countries have officially imposed sanctions — in some cases, these are still merely declarative statements.

Israel has already begun taking retaliatory measures affecting the two countries’ diplomatic and military-political ties. In particular, a decision has been made to close the British Consulate in East Jerusalem within 30 days, expel British representatives from the international coordination centre in Gaza, and terminate the British programme for training Palestinian Authority police forces. In addition, Israel has banned 12 British MPs and other citizens from entering the country. These are already serious retaliatory measures,” the expert said.

According to Gur-Arye, the sanctions could also have economic consequences for Britain. However, the most serious consequences for London may be linked not to restrictions on Israeli products, but to a possible change in Israel’s position on the issue of the Falkland Islands.

“The most important point is that Israel is now seriously considering recognising Argentine sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. This is a step that could have very serious consequences for Britain.

Israel is significantly expanding military-technical cooperation with Argentina. If Israel begins supplying anti-ship missiles and other types of weaponry, this could create a serious problem for Britain in terms of maintaining its control over the Falkland Islands.

If Israel recognises Argentine sovereignty over the islands, while the United States, which is interested in oil production, also supports Buenos Aires, Britain could find itself in a difficult situation,” Gur-Arye believes.

At the same time, the expert notes that the direct economic damage to Israel from the British sanctions will be limited.

“Exports from Judea and Samaria to Britain that are subject to the sanctions are very modest. They consist mainly of agricultural products, and Israel is already working to redirect these exports to other markets.

The same applies to the British embargo on Israeli military products. This concerns certain components for F-35 pilot helmets, produced as part of international cooperation. And no one, especially the United States, will allow these supplies to be halted,” he said.

Gur-Arye also highlighted the possible consequences of the sanctions for Palestinians working at Israeli businesses in Judea and Samaria.

“An embargo on products from the so-called occupied territories would primarily be a devastating blow to the Palestinian population. The vast majority of businesses operating there employ Palestinians. Previous restrictions imposed by other countries have already resulted in hundreds of Palestinian workers losing their jobs. In effect, this further worsens the situation of the Palestinian people.

For Israel, the problem is that some foreign companies may refuse to purchase these products simply to avoid having to determine exactly where they were produced — in Israel or in territory subject to sanctions,” the expert noted.

At the same time, Gur-Arye described the current situation as a serious failure of Israeli diplomacy.

“The possibility of a boycott by Britain and a number of other countries is being viewed in Israel as a failure of our Foreign Ministry. Regardless of the British motives, Israel’s Foreign Ministry should have prevented this. If it failed to do so, that is its failure — and the failure of the foreign minister,” the political commentator said.

British journalist and political analyst Yuri Goligorsky, a former editor-in-chief of BBC World Service broadcasting to the former Soviet Union, believes that the sharp deterioration in relations between Britain and Israel came as no surprise, as the Labour Party has long advocated a change in London’s policy towards Israel.

“Under former Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Britain unilaterally recognised the State of Palestine. After Andy Burnham became prime minister, London’s policy became even more radical. He apologised for the Labour government’s position on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and promised to take a tougher stance.

This was reflected in statements by Britain’s new Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, who said that Israel was engaging in ethnic cleansing. British government officials had not previously used such language. After that, events began to escalate, eventually leading to the current crisis in relations between Britain and Israel,” the expert noted.

According to Goligorsky, London probably did not expect such a strong reaction from Israel.

“Britain clearly assumed that Israel’s response would not lead to such serious diplomatic consequences. At the same time, the position of the United States is also a concern, as Washington has so far refrained from expressing a clear assessment of what is happening,” he said.

The expert believes that the sharp shift in British policy is also linked to internal party considerations.

“The Labour Party’s left wing has long demanded a change in policy towards Israel. Therefore, the current more radical agenda may also be driven by electoral considerations. Labour needs to retain the support of voters, some of whom hold extremely anti-Israel views,” Goligorsky noted.

In his view, London may also have underestimated the potential economic consequences of its decisions, particularly the reaction from the United States.

“Perhaps the British Foreign Office did not anticipate all the consequences. In the United States, there are already calls to restrict imports of British products in response to London’s sanctions policy. This is a fairly large market, and such measures could have a serious impact on British exports,” the expert stressed.

At the same time, Goligorsky believes that deteriorating relations with Israel could also create security problems for Britain.

“It seems to me that this situation is highly detrimental to Britain in terms of the political rift between Israel and the UK. The two countries have traditionally been regarded as allies. Many political analysts say that such a rupture could also undermine Britain’s security, as Israel provides London with a large amount of intelligence that helps combat terrorism. The Labour Party conference is coming up, and Ed Miliband will most likely receive a storm of applause for the line he has taken. But one must distinguish between a position within the party and the interests of Britain. Prime ministers and parties come and go, but the interests of the state remain.

These sanctions may certainly be justified from the Labour Party’s perspective. But whether they are justified in the interests of Britain itself is another question,” Goligorsky concluded.