JAKE WALLIS SIMONS: A monumental act of national self-harm to stop Muslim voters from deserting Labour for the Greens
This Daily Mail opinion piece by Jake Wallis Simons attacks new Prime Minister Andy Burnham and Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband over sanctions announced against Israeli settlements, which the author argues amount to a de facto boycott of Israel. He claims the move damages Britain's economic, security and diplomatic ties with Israel, risks provoking retaliation from the United States, and has already prompted Israel to close its Jerusalem consulate to British officials and exclude the UK from Gaza reconstruction talks. The author frames the decision as politically motivated, suggesting it is designed to placate Muslim voters at risk of switching to the Green Party.
The piece argues Israel remains the region's only genuine democracy and points out that most Jewish settlers in the West Bank are not extremists, contrasting this with what it describes as Britain's disproportionate focus on Israel rather than Hamas or the Palestinian Authority. It notes that 38 US states have laws penalising boycotts of Israel, and highlights that Britain has taken eight hostile measures against Israel since October 2023 compared with none against Ramallah or Hamas. The article also references the UK's recognition of a Palestinian state last year and criticises both Miliband and Burnham for their past support of that recognition, while noting Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch's comparison of Burnham to former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
In short
- Opinion piece accuses PM Burnham of harming UK-Israel ties via new sanctions
- Israel closed its Jerusalem consulate and excluded UK from Gaza rebuilding talks
- Author claims move aims to win back Muslim voters from the Greens
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of the sanctions could argue that settlement activity in occupied territory undermines prospects for a negotiated peace and raises serious legal and human-rights concerns. Targeted measures may be a proportionate way for Britain to signal that conduct has consequences, while distinguishing between Israel and settlements and maintaining pressure for Palestinian rights and a viable political settlement.
The case against
Critics could argue that sanctions risk weakening a close security and diplomatic partnership with Israel, reducing Britain’s influence and making cooperation on regional threats harder. They may also see the measures as inconsistent or politically motivated if Britain applies pressure to Israel without comparable action towards Hamas or the Palestinian Authority, and as liable to harm prospects for dialogue rather than improve them.
Explained simply
The West Bank is territory captured by Israel in 1967 and claimed by Palestinians as part of a future state. Israeli settlements there are communities built on land Palestinians seek; their legal status and expansion are disputed internationally. Israel says it has security needs, while Palestinians say settlements undermine their prospects for statehood.
The UK, Israel and the Palestinians have long-standing but contested diplomatic ties. Sanctions are restrictions imposed to put pressure on people or organisations, and governments may disagree over whether they are an effective response to settlement activity. The story refers to Andy Burnham, the new prime minister in its account, and Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, as well as debate within UK politics over policy towards Israel and Palestinian statehood.
The issue matters because it touches on the prospects for peace, Britain’s relations with Israel and the Palestinians, and the UK’s wider diplomatic and security relationships. It also sits within domestic party politics, where Labour, the Greens and Conservatives compete for support among voters with differing views on the conflict.
Elections Entertainment Government Music Politics World