The UK is set to sanction Israeli West Bank settlements on Tuesday — and while even America's closest allies are finally demanding accountability for settlement expansion, Washington is threatening retaliation against Britain for doing it.
The move exposes the growing gap between the rest of the West and a U.S. political class that keeps writing blank checks to Israel no matter what. British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband called the sanctions a defense of the two-state solution; the Trump administration called it a problem. Ordinary Americans should ask who benefits from that gap — because they're the ones paying for it.
The UK sanctions target trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, including an embargo on goods and services from settlements that the international community regards as illegal. The trigger was Israel's push to advance the E1 settlement project east of Jerusalem, which would install more than 1,200 housing units and effectively bisect the West Bank, making a contiguous Palestinian state nearly impossible. Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has said explicitly that settlement expansion is designed to "bury" the idea of a Palestinian state. "The Palestinian state is being erased from the table not with slogans but with actions," Smotrich said when E1 received final approval.
Miliband condemned the plan as an "unacceptable and destructive act" that crosses a "red line," summoning Israel's Chargé d'Affaires in London last month. The practical economic impact is narrow — CNN reports settlement products make up a tiny fraction of the approximately $8 billion in annual UK-Israel trade — but the diplomatic signal is sharp: a major Western ally is willing to impose costs.
Israel's response was unhinged. Smotrich called for the British ambassador's expulsion, declaring the UK "an antisemitic government in a country conquered by radical Islam" trying to "escape economic and social collapse by attacking Jews and the State of Israel." National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir posted in Spanish on X that Netanyahu should retaliate by recognizing Argentine sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and sanctioning Britain for its "occupation" there. Middle East Eye reported that Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar warned: "If Britain acts against Israel, Israel will act against Britain."
Then there's Washington. U.S. Ambassador Mike Huckabee told BBC News there would "without a doubt" be a reaction from the Trump administration, warning of a "huge impact on British businesses." Fox News reported that the State Department is "tracking the plans closely." Rep. Randy Fine, R-Fla., threatened that the UK move could trigger Florida's anti-boycott law, potentially barring affected British companies from doing business with state and local governments — meaning a foreign government's trade policy could dictate which companies American states are allowed to contract with.
New British Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who has not spoken to Netanyahu since taking office in July, briefed Trump on the sanctions Monday, according to Bloomberg. The White House readout made no mention of them. Trump has previously suggested he would not back Britain if Argentina moved on the Falklands.
CNN framed the sanctions as a "significant reset" in UK-Israel relations and noted the surge in settler violence against Palestinians. Fox News framed the story around the friction between Burnham and Trump, labeling Burnham a "longtime Trump critic" and burying the substance of the settlement expansion. Middle East Eye led with the Israeli ministers' Falklands retaliation — giving the full flavor of Smotrich and Ben-Gvir's rhetoric — and noted Trump's Falklands posture, which the other outlets soft-pedaled.
The question nobody in Washington is asking: if Britain can sanction settlement products without collapsing its $8 billion trade relationship, why does the U.S. refuse to attach any conditions at all to the billions it sends Israel every year? The bipartisan consensus treats Israeli aid as untouchable — even as Israeli cabinet ministers openly boast about using that money's implicit backing to annex territory and eliminate the possibility of a Palestinian state. Every dollar sent abroad is a dollar not spent at home. The UK just showed that even close allies can say enough. What's Washington's excuse?
