On September 8, just hours after British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband announced sweeping sanctions against trade with Jewish communities beyond the Green Line – Judea and Samaria, the Golan, and east Jerusalem – Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar angrily shot back.
“Whoever acts against Israel – Israel will act against them, and they will lose their influence and relevance in the region. Measures against Israel will not go unanswered.”
Sa’ar announced several retaliatory steps, including closing the nearly 200-year-old British consulate in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, which serves east Jerusalem and the West Bank, removing British representatives from the international aid center for Gaza in Kiryat Gat, and ending British activities to train Palestinian Authority forces through the British Support Team in Ramallah.
He also announced entry bans on 12 British elected officials and other citizens involved in antisemitic and anti-Israel activities. At the top of that list was ex-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
Since then, the rhetoric of Miliband and British Prime Minister Andy Burnham against Israel has gotten even more strident.
Outlandish lie of ethnic cleansing by pro-Palestine validator Miliband
At the Labour Party convention last week, Miliband validated the pro-Palestinian protest movement that has swept Britain since October 7 – demonstrations that have, at times, left Jews feeling that parts of their own country were out of bounds. “We hear you, you were right,” he said, while repeating the outlandish lie of ethnic cleansing in Judea and Samaria.
He stopped short of accusing Israel of genocide, saying this will be decided by international courts, even though he knows full well there is no genocide in Gaza.
Miliband and Burnham have dramatically reset Britain’s relations with Israel, to the detriment of both countries. Israel is entitled to respond.
Sa’ar was therefore right to order the closure of the British consulate. It is, indeed, high time for Israel to demonstrate that actions against it will be repaid in kind.
Britain and several other European countries seem to assume that they can punish Israel, try to dictate the contours of a future diplomatic agreement, and continue to enjoy the same access, cooperation and influence.
That assumption needs to be forcefully challenged.
At the Labour convention, Miliband said, “We will ban the import of goods from illegal settlements. We will disrupt the supply lines of British finance, British construction, and British services for illegal settlements. And when it comes to the attempt to destroy the two-state solution, this party, this movement, this government, says ‘we will not let you succeed.’”
But who are you, Mr. Miliband, to tell Israelis what arrangement they must accept for their future security?
Many Israelis regard a Palestinian state as an existential threat. Gaza is central to that fear.
Britain is entitled to its policies, Israel is entitled to levy consequences
Israel withdrew its soldiers and settlements, and Hamas turned the territory – essentially a mini Palestinian state – into a launching pad for attacks against Israel, culminating in the horror of October 7. British declarations do not answer the security questions that experience raises.
Britain is entitled to its policies. Israel is entitled to attach consequences to them.
Sa’ar should therefore ensure that the measures he announced are carried out, despite British threats to expel an Israeli diplomat from London for every diplomat expelled from the consulate.
To that we say: so be it.
Israeli diplomats in London serve Israel’s interests, but this relationship also serves Britain through intelligence sharing and security cooperation. A diplomatic rupture would cost Israel, but Britain would pay a price as well.
Those costs deserve consideration. But they do not justify allowing Britain to assume that its confrontational policies come free of charge, particularly when its approach – as its leaders have admitted – is designed to encourage others to follow their lead.
In the summer of 2025, when France recognized a virtual Palestinian state, and several other countries, including Britain, followed suit, Israel threatened to close the French consulate in the city. For various reasons, it didn’t follow through.
It should have. Threats not implemented weaken the credibility of the next warning.
Closing the British consulate would demonstrate that Britain cannot take its diplomatic access and influence in the region for granted while pursuing policies Israel considers harmful to its security.
Israel need not respond to every hostile statement with a diplomatic crisis. But when a government translates hostility into concrete punitive measures, a concrete response is warranted.
Sa’ar has announced that response. He should now carry it out.