Israel Punishes Britain, a State that Led to its Creation
By Naela Alwaari
On 8 September 2026, the British government announced that it considers the continued Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories to be illegal, and that it would prohibit the import of products from illegal settlements, ban the promotion of settlement properties in Britain, and take measures against individuals and companies that support, facilitate, or benefit from settlement activity. It also imposed sanctions on extremist settlers who supported or participated in acts of violence against Palestinians.
The British government went further than in its previous positions when it agreed to describe what is taking place in parts of the West Bank as the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians by settler groups, amid the silence of the Israeli government or the support of some of its members for acts of forced displacement.
This position, however, came after a long period of British silence and inconsistent positions toward Palestinian suffering, particularly during the war on Gaza, when British policies and measures failed to correspond to the scale of the killing, starvation, displacement, and destruction inflicted upon the Palestinian people. The significance of the current step therefore does not erase that history, nor does it absolve Britain of its political and moral responsibility for what has happened, and continues to happen, in Palestine.
Israel’s response was swift and angry. It announced the closure of the British Consulate-General in East Jerusalem and the termination of several forms of cooperation with Britain. The decision to close the consulate was not merely an administrative measure, but a clear political punishment for London’s move—albeit a partial one—from statements of condemnation to measures that directly affect the settlement project and the interests of those who support it.
The deeper irony is that Israel is today punishing the very country whose consulate historically played a role in protecting Jewish immigrants, before Britain, during the Mandate period, went on to sponsor the Zionist project and create the political and administrative conditions for its establishment in Palestine.
Yet the significance of this development goes beyond the fate of the consulate itself. Britain, together with other Western countries that contributed to the formulation and protection of the Zionist project, is beginning to confront the consequences that resulted from it. The entity whose establishment was celebrated as a solution to the Jewish question in Europe was created on the land of another people. Its successive policies subsequently revealed an expansionist settler-colonial character that did not stop at the borders of 1948 or 1967, but extended to the confiscation of land, demolition of homes, expansion of settlements, and displacement of the Palestinians—the owners of the land and its indigenous inhabitants.
To understand the significance of Britain’s present position, it is necessary to return to the beginnings of the British presence in Palestine. British interest in Palestine emerged during the first half of the nineteenth century, within the context of European competition over the Ottoman Empire and its possessions, particularly Greater Syria. The system of foreign privileges granted European powers opportunities to expand their commercial, religious, and political activities, while giving their consuls considerable scope to intervene and provide protection to individuals and communities associated with their respective countries.
On 11 November 1837, British Foreign Secretary Lord Palmerston sent a letter to the British ambassador in Istanbul, Lord Ponsonby, explaining the importance of appointing a British consul in Jerusalem. Following negotiations with the Ottoman Empire, an imperial decree was issued in 1838 establishing the consulate, and William Young was appointed Britain’s first consul in the city.
This occurred shortly before the London Conference of 1840 and the resulting changes in the regional balance of power, including the end of the rule of Muhammad Ali and Ibrahim Pasha in Greater Syria. From that period onward, European influence—and British influence in particular—expanded in Palestine through consulates and religious, commercial, and exploratory missions.
The choice of Jerusalem was not arbitrary. Britain sought a foothold in a city of exceptional religious and political importance, as well as a centre from which to protect its interests and receive its citizens and visitors, while supporting and expanding the Protestant presence. The activities of the consulate, however, went beyond these objectives to include the sponsorship and protection of Jews, particularly those arriving from Russia and Eastern Europe.
The documents on which I relied in my book, The Role of Foreign Consulates in Jewish Immigration and Settlement in Palestine, 1840–1914, reveal that British consuls in Jerusalem, during the period preceding the Balfour Declaration, received instructions to extend British protection to Jews, assist their immigration, and increase the number settling in Jerusalem.
British Consul James Finn expanded this policy even further. He received at the port of Haifa ships carrying immigrants from Europe. The consulate prepared special files on Russian Jews, counted their numbers, registered them in separate records, and worked to bring them under British consular protection.
This protection was not confined to legal matters. It extended to improving their living conditions, facilitating their permanent settlement, and granting some of them travel documents or a legal status connected with Britain. The consulate was therefore not simply a neutral observer of Jewish immigration; it played a role in providing political and legal cover for it.
The British presence assumed other forms as well. In the 1870s, Britain dispatched a technical mission that conducted an extensive survey of the territory of Palestine from north to south. These surveying and exploratory activities were not separate from colonial competition. They provided detailed knowledge of the land, population, roads, and resources—knowledge that subsequently acquired political, military, and settlement-related value.
The Balfour Declaration of 1917 was therefore not the sudden beginning of an entirely new British policy. Rather, it represented the culmination of a long trajectory that preceded the emergence of the Zionist movement as a global political organisation. The protection, encouragement, and facilitation of immigration undertaken by the British consulate during the 19th century helped prepare the political and legal ground for Britain’s subsequent position.
With Britain’s occupation of Palestine and the subsequent imposition of the Mandate, London no longer needed to pursue its policy through the window of a foreign consulate. Britain itself had become the ruling and administrative authority, and its role shifted from indirect consular protection to the official sponsorship of the Zionist project.
The Mandate for Palestine obliged Britain to create the conditions necessary for the establishment of the “Jewish national home.” Article 6 stipulated the facilitation of Jewish immigration and encouraged the settlement of Jews on the land, including state lands and lands not required for public purposes. The initiatives that had begun with consular protection were thus transformed into official policies implemented by the Mandate authorities through their administrative, legislative, and security institutions.
What Britain today describes as ethnic cleansing is not an event disconnected from the past. Rather, it is an extension of a logic that began with protected immigration and organised settlement, and subsequently developed into the continuing uprooting of the indigenous population and their replacement by settlers.
Nevertheless, Britain’s latest position should not be given more significance than it warrants, nor should it be regarded as a rupture with Israel or a complete reversal of British policy. The British Embassy remains in Tel Aviv, and political, commercial, and security relations between the two countries continue. This may be a positive political step, but it has not, so far, reached the level of a strategic transformation in British policy toward Israel and the Palestinian question.
The British government itself has stressed that its measures target settlements and the economic activities associated with them, rather than Israel itself, and that it remains committed to maintaining trade as well as academic, scientific, and investment relations with Israel. It has also declared its opposition to the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS).
The step should therefore be viewed with both a degree of welcome and caution: Welcome because it moves opposition to settlement activity beyond words toward certain practical measures; caution because it does not mean that Britain has decided to sever its relationship with Israel or undertake a comprehensive reassessment of its historical policy.
We, as Palestinians and Arabs, are often quick to celebrate any international position that challenges Israel, because of our sense that the world has left the Palestinians alone for far too long. Experience, however, teaches us not to build great hopes upon a single step, and not to rely excessively on a position that may change with governments, elections, and in response to the crimes committed against the Palestinian people.
The real measure is not speeches or angry Israeli reactions, but whether these measures continue, expand, and are transformed into a permanent and binding policy that holds the occupation accountable for settlement activity, displacement, and crimes committed against the Palestinian people.
Any international shift derives its significance not from the degree of Israeli anger it provokes, but from the extent to which it provides genuine protection for the rights of the Palestinian people on their land.
This article was originally written in Arabic and appeared in Akhbar Al Baled in Jerusalem. Dr Naela Alwaari is a historian and an expert researcher on Palestinian affairs with particular focus on Jerusalem anf has written many books on the subject. This article appears in crossfirearabia.com
marwan
Heba
