OCTOBER 17, 2026 14:29

The episode involving the shutdown of the British Consulate in Jerusalem concluded last week, at least for now, allowing both sides to declare success.

Israel can point out that, following its directive a month earlier, the British consulate no longer operates in the capital, with most diplomats having left. Meanwhile, Britain has clarified that the facility stays open under the name UK Mission, Jerusalem, and will keep supporting its work with Palestinians.

Israel's order to shut the consulate came after Britain decided to prohibit imports from the settlements. Earlier limits existed, yet this step marked a notable escalation by the British authorities.

Political influence from Labour backers played a role in the British choice, tied in part to events in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel's response also carries political weight.

Such reactions are expected. Still, what sparked the entire dispute?

The core issue: Concerns over Israeli settlements in the West Bank

Settlement exports represent only about one percent of Israel's total shipments, yet the underlying rule is what counts. Wide international consensus holds that these areas fall outside Israel, a fact long known to Israeli leaders.

Israeli administrations have agreed over time to exclude the territories from certain advantages. This explains why Ariel University is barred from European Union research initiatives and why wine from Gush Etzion cannot carry a Made in Israel label. Any compensation for residents there remains an internal Israeli matter.

Israel recognizes this global stance and often aligns with it. Two main exceptions stand out from Israel's viewpoint: east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, both annexed by the state.

For the remaining areas, the formal status has stayed unchanged since June 11, 1967, the day after the Six Day War, despite increased Israeli civilian activity in the West Bank. These lands count as occupied under international law.

International rules bar acquiring land by force and treat occupation as temporary by nature. They limit what an occupying power can do, such as moving its own people into the area or shifting locals out.

The rules also require the occupier to safeguard the local population's safety and assets. Military law governs the territories, with few exceptions like taxes collected from Israeli residents.

Until recently, Britain and others partly overlooked the gap between ground realities and the international law Israel claims to respect. That tolerance seems to be fading. How should Israel respond?

One path is to press ahead and dismiss steps like Britain's, which may not be the final or toughest measure. Another choice returns to the diplomatic agreement and its background.

Ahead of the resolution, suggestions emerged that Britain might remove 27 Israeli diplomats from London to match the number of British staff ordered out.

Raising such an idea over a policy difference is remarkable. Diplomats usually face expulsion for espionage concerns, and Israeli envoys have left after conflicts. The idea of so many representatives departing Israel's second-biggest export market, after the United States, and a country with the Diaspora fourth-largest Jewish community, is difficult to accept.

Israel may opt to brush off all criticism or label it antisemitic. It can also see the British step as an alert about risks to ties with other states if it continues to manage the territories and their residents without limits, as if no rules apply.

The writer served as Israel's first ambassador to the Baltic states following the Soviet Union's collapse, ambassador to South Africa, and congressional liaison at the Israeli embassy in Washington. She is a graduate of Israel's National Defense College.