More than 130 lawyers press Britain to widen its measures against Israel

A new legal challenge to British policy

More than 130 British lawyers and legal academics sent Prime Minister Andy Burnham a letter on September 15 urging substantially broader measures against Israel. The group, which includes 18 king’s counsel and a former senior appellate judge, welcomed Britain’s recent restrictions on commerce linked to Israeli settlements but argued that limiting action to settlers and settlement activity does not address the wider occupation that London now considers unlawful.

The letter calls for a full arms embargo and restrictions on services that could sustain settlement activity, including insurance, accountancy and digital infrastructure. Its authors also want the government to establish whether British public bodies, pension schemes or sovereign funds hold investments connected to settlements. These are requests rather than adopted policies, and the government has not announced that it will accept them.

What Britain has already done

Britain, France and Canada said on September 8 that they would introduce national bans on goods from Israeli settlements. They joined a wider group of European governments that either supported such restrictions or were considering them. The official statement linked the measures to accelerating settlement construction, settler violence and Israel’s tender for 1,200 homes in the E1 area east of Jerusalem.

The E1 project matters because construction there could further separate the northern and southern West Bank and weaken territorial continuity with East Jerusalem. Britain had already summoned Israel’s chargé d’affaires over the tender in August. The government says its measures are intended to preserve the possibility of a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel while maintaining Israel’s legitimate security interests.

The dispute now shifts to implementation

The lawyers’ central argument is that Britain’s legal position and its economic policy are misaligned. If the occupation itself is unlawful, they contend, measures confined to settlement goods may leave other financial and commercial relationships untouched. The government responded that its policy represents a major reset, citing action on accountability and coordination with international partners, but it did not detail any additional steps.

Attention will now turn to the scope and enforcement of the promised import ban, the definition of covered entities and whether ministers extend restrictions to arms or professional services. Israel has rejected the British approach and previously retaliated against the settlement measures. The disagreement therefore carries consequences for bilateral relations as well as for Britain’s wider effort to coordinate European policy on the West Bank.