Miliband’s Israel speech was a watershed. Now he must deliver

Time will tell whether the Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband’s significant speech to Parliament last Tuesday will be viewed as a watershed moment in UK-Israel relations or a flash in the pan. As Miliband knows, time is not on the side of Palestinians as Israel continues to commit genocide, expand settlements, steal more land and violently displace Palestinian communities.

Miliband has certainly gone further than his predecessors, and this is to be welcomed – but it’s a low bar after decades of UK policy falling short of its own legal obligations. Recognising the unlawfulness of Israel’s illegal occupation is a good starting point - one Amnesty International has been pushing the UK toward and was confirmed in the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) July 2024 Advisory Opinion. The question is whether this recognition leads to a change in policy and practice.

Miliband’s statement indicated a genuine commitment to the “comprehensive reset” he promised of UK policy on Israel. But his diagnosis of the problems was at times selective. For instance, he rightly called out the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in parts of the West Bank - but pinning it on “settler terrorists”, while stating that the Israeli government has merely “turned a blind eye”, is a distortion he and his officials must surely be aware of.

These rampaging settlers are armed by the state, backed by Israeli forces and incited by senior government ministers. They are not rogue actors. They are proxies for state policy – and Israel bears full responsibility for their actions.

The commitment to “introduce a new comprehensive sanctions regime” on illegal settlements is one Amnesty has pressed for years - it is a welcome departure from previous policy, and one that follows in the footsteps of other states. But a sanctions regime only works if it makes Israel’s settlements unviable. That means covering all forms of trade and investment, including the provision of services such as insurance, banking, IT, digital tourism, security, construction, engineering, real estate and consultancy - not just goods.

It was surprising and disappointing that Miliband announced that it would be six to nine months before the legislation is in place. When Russia invaded Ukraine, the UK announced its first sanctions within hours – and had trade restrictions on goods from Russian-occupied eastern Ukraine within five weeks, by 30 March 2022. Existing legislation is already in place in the form of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, which has been used to impose sanctions on 25 states.

The announcement that the UK will “refuse all licence applications for arms and other exports that materially contribute to the occupation” is also positive and overdue. However, it will be critical to see how the UK assesses whether an item contributes to the occupation.

More problematically, Miliband himself confirmed that this would not apply to F-35 parts - despite evidence of the F-35’s extensive use in Israel’s genocide in occupied Gaza. This is a significant gap in an otherwise welcome commitment.

Amnesty has long argued that ending transfers of F-35 parts to the Global Supply Pool - the international pipeline that supplies parts to every F-35 built, including those operated by Israel - is both necessary to fulfil international legal obligations and possible without jeopardising the wider F-35 programme. BAE Systems, the UK’s largest arms company, says it is responsible for 15% of every F-35 that rolls off the production line. Every F-35 currently in Israel's fleet – used to horrific effect in Gaza - contains significant UK-supplied parts and components.

Breaking Israel's impunity requires accountability mechanisms the UK has, at times, tried to block. In May 2021, the then UK government voted against a UN Human Rights Council resolution establishing an Independent International Commission of Inquiry into violations of international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

Certainly, it is a positive step that Miliband has now referenced the Commission's findings - which include stating clearly that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza. This suggests a more amenable approach to such mechanisms in future and would be a welcome reversal - particularly since the Foreign Secretary maintained his predecessor's position of not taking a position on whether Israel is committing genocide.

Whatever the UK does or doesn't say, the legal obligation to act to prevent and punish genocide is already triggered. The UN Commission of Inquiry has found that states must, at minimum, recognise the serious risk of genocide being committed against Palestinians. The government should say so plainly - not wait for a final ICJ ruling, which could take years yet to come.

One of the most glaring omissions in Miliband’s speech was any reference to the systematic discrimination against Palestinians - which the ICJ has found breaches the prohibition on racial segregation and apartheid. Given the racism at the heart of Israel’s cruel and brutal treatment of Palestinians, any approach to holding Israel accountable is unlikely to work unless this is addressed.

Miliband’s speech may yet break the logjam of the UK’s acquiescence in Israel’s crimes under international law and, in doing so, help bring an end to the suffering and subjugation of Palestinians. Miliband appears to recognise what’s at stake. But he must implement his promises of comprehensive action quickly and robustly, and others must follow.

For Palestinians subject to Israel’s genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid, action can’t come soon enough.

Peter Frankental is Amnesty International UK’s Economic Affairs Director.

Have questions or comments? Email us at: editorial-english@newarab.com

Opinions expressed in this article remain those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The New Arab, its editorial board or staff.