分类: politics

  • US slaps import ban on Canadian alcohol and other goods

    US slaps import ban on Canadian alcohol and other goods

    The long-simmering trade dispute between the United States and Canada has entered a dangerous new phase, with Washington moving to implement a full ban on a range of key Canadian imports after Ottawa’s retaliatory tariffs on American goods officially came into force.

    In a set of executive orders signed Tuesday, former US President Donald Trump claimed that Canada has de facto discriminated against American commercial activity, and formalized the import ban set to launch on September 29. The restricted products cover a wide swath of Canadian trade, including alcohol, dairy products and passenger and commercial motor vehicles.

    Just hours before Trump’s announcement, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney delivered a televised video address acknowledging the harsh reality of his country’s strategic shift to reduce economic dependence on its largest trading partner. “This pivot will come at a cost,” Carney told the Canadian public, as the country prepared to roll out its retaliatory measures.

    The latest escalation follows the collapse of trade negotiations between the two neighbors in late August. While officials from both sides have repeatedly stated that they remain open to reaching a new negotiated agreement, no new diplomatic talks have been scheduled to de-escalate the crisis.

    The conflict first intensified last month, when the White House imposed a steep 50% tariff on roughly $20 billion worth of Canadian exports after multiple rounds of talks failed to bridge core differences. In a tit-for-tat response, Canada announced matching dollar-for-dollar retaliatory tariffs on iconic American exports including steel, apparel and furniture, which officially went into effect just after midnight on Tuesday.

    What makes this bilateral clash even more unusual is that tensions have spilled far beyond the realm of trade policy. In August, Trump drew widespread international backlash when he issued an order to rename Lake Ontario, one of the five Great Lakes shared between the US and Canada, to “Lake America” — a decision that sparked public uproar among both Canadian citizens and many American commentators.

    This is an ongoing developing breaking news story, with additional details expected to be released in the coming hours and days. Readers can access real-time updates via the BBC News mobile application, or follow BBC Breaking News’ official account on X for instant alerts on new developments.

  • Hegseth is shaking up the Pentagon as the US wages war – but at what cost?

    Hegseth is shaking up the Pentagon as the US wages war – but at what cost?

    The United States military currently finds itself entangled in two overlapping, high-stakes conflicts that are raising urgent questions about its operational readiness, global positioning, and long-term institutional stability during Donald Trump’s second presidential term. One front unfolds abroad: a years-long stalemate with Iran over control of the critical Strait of Hormuz, which has forced a massive global redistribution of U.S. military assets that is now rippling through alliance networks from Europe to the Indo-Pacific. The second front is a domestic institutional upheaval, led by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, whose aggressive shake-up of Pentagon leadership has triggered bitter partisan and internal recriminations, capped last week by the resignation of the U.S. Army’s top civilian leader, Secretary Dan Driscoll.

    Driscoll, a relatively low-profile figure outside defense policy circles, oversaw a critical modernization push for the U.S. Army before stepping down last Monday. For months, he had clashed repeatedly with Hegseth over the scope and pace of proposed reforms, particularly his push to integrate cheap, mass-produced drones into standard infantry formations, a shift he argued was essential to adapting 21st-century battlefields after lessons drawn from the war in Ukraine. Driscoll warned that the U.S. military’s bloated bureaucracy and glacial, costly procurement processes left it ill-prepared to counter evolving modern threats, according to senior administration sources. Though Hegseth initially backed the broader modernization agenda, he ultimately pushed back against rapid expansion, and Driscoll accused him of blocking the plan by removing senior generals tasked with leading its implementation. Driscoll’s departure is just the latest in a string of high-profile exits of top civilian and uniformed leaders aligned with the modernization effort.

    The growing chaos has prompted sharp criticism from across the political and national security spectrum. Republican Senator Thom Tillis, a consistent critic of Trump, has publicly called for Hegseth’s ouster, saying he has never witnessed more incompetent management of U.S. service members. Former first-term Trump National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster called Driscoll’s departure troubling for the U.S. Army, noting Driscoll had been pushing a critical modernization agenda to bring the service up to speed against near-peer competitors. Retired Navy Captain Jon Duffy, a former White House defense policy official during the Obama administration, argued that Driscoll’s exit has “hollowed out” senior military leadership at a critical moment, creating crippling uncertainty that disrupts progress on modernization and ripples down through the ranks to impact frontline readiness.

    Hegseth, a former Army National Guardsman and conservative Fox News pundit who campaigned on transforming the Pentagon’s cultural identity, has framed his overhaul as a necessary correction to decades of what he calls ideological overreach and institutional stagnation. He has repeatedly vowed to eliminate what he labels “woke” diversity initiatives, loosen restrictive rules of engagement he claims limit warfighter lethality, and purge the Pentagon of what he calls out-of-touch, complacent senior leaders. To date, he has removed or sidelined the top uniformed leaders of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, along with more than two dozen senior generals, admirals, and civilian defense officials—many of them among the military’s most decorated officers—often without public explanation.

    Critics have drawn unflinching comparisons to large-scale political purges of foreign military establishments. Michael Schiffer, a former senior Pentagon official for East Asia during the Obama administration and now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, argued that the mass leadership shake-up amounts to a U.S. military purge that has created serious command gaps and readiness deficiencies that mirror those seen after China’s political purges of its People’s Liberation Army. “The way [Hegseth] is shaking them up… is bringing on board an awful lot of risk without any apparent way to address or ameliorate it,” Schiffer told the BBC.

    But Hegseth retains staunch support from the White House and top Trump administration officials. Vice President JD Vance defended the Pentagon overhaul last week, saying he strongly agreed with the need for cultural change after four decades of what he called lost wars and military misadventures. “What Pete came in wanting to do was revive the warrior spirit in the United States of America,” Vance said. The White House confirmed that Trump retains full confidence in Hegseth, pointing to what it calls a record of success in recent military operations against Iran. Trump has repeatedly stood by Hegseth through prior controversies, including the Signalgate scandal, calling him “one of my best” picks in a recent interview with NBC News. Ezra Cohen, a former Under Secretary of Defense during Trump’s first term, described Hegseth’s reforms as a breath of fresh air, bringing new ideas and a more proactive approach to defense strategy.

    Beyond the domestic upheaval, the ongoing stalemate with Iran in the Gulf is stretching U.S. military capabilities thin and straining long-standing alliances across the globe. After Trump ordered major strikes on Iran last February, the U.S. has drawn down critical weapons stockpiles and troop deployments from both Europe and the Pacific to reinforce the Gulf, replenishing munitions and moving large ground and naval assets to the region. The shift has already created significant strategic blowback in Europe, according to Liana Fix, a Germany-based expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.

    Fix explained that the Trump administration failed to consult NATO and European allies ahead of the Iran strikes, and the subsequent resource drawdown has accelerated a pre-planned shift of U.S. forces out of the continent, a move aligned with Trump’s longstanding criticism that European allies fail to carry their own defense weight. The perceived disunity and weakening of U.S. commitment to European security has created an opening for Russian President Vladimir Putin to escalate hybrid attacks, including armed drone strikes and sabotage operations across NATO countries like Germany, Fix said. “What [Putin] is seeing is not a united stance from the United States and the Europeans to further increase pressure on Russia… he sees that they are weakening, that there are windows and openings of vulnerabilities in Europe,” she noted. Recent unusual diplomatic moves reflect the growing tension: CIA Director John Ratcliffe made a rare high-profile visit to Moscow last month to warn the Kremlin against testing NATO’s resolve, while a top Hegseth aide was in Europe pushing allied governments to increase their own defense spending. The U.S. has already cut 5,000 troops from its 40,000-strong deployment in Germany, and scrapped a Biden-era plan to station a battalion armed with long-range Tomahawk missiles in the country.

    While the drawdown in Europe aligns with the Trump administration’s long-stated goal of refocusing U.S. strategy on great power competition with China in the Pacific, the Iran conflict has actually stretched U.S. capabilities in the Indo-Pacific too. Key naval assets, including the USS Abraham Lincoln and the Japan-based USS George Washington carrier strike groups, were diverted from the Pacific to the Gulf to support operations against Iran, leaving the region understaffed at a critical moment of rising tensions with Beijing. The prolonged deployment has already taken a visible toll: recent photos of the USS Abraham Lincoln docking in Thailand with a rusted hull after nine months straight at sea were seized on by Iranian state media to portray the U.S. as overextended and exhausted. Hegseth has forcefully denied claims of poor conditions aboard the vessel, but the image has become a symbol of the strain of the prolonged conflict.

    Most notably, the Iran conflict has gutted critical U.S. munitions stockpiles, according to analysis from the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a Washington-based think tank. The U.S. has fired roughly one-third of its entire national stockpile of 3,000 Tomahawk cruise missiles, and nearly 1,500 Patriot air defense interceptors—roughly two-thirds of the country’s total stockpile of 2,300—have been expended to counter Iranian drones and missiles. The White House has pushed back against these concerns, with Principal Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly insisting that U.S. military power is stronger than ever, and that the military retains enough stockpiles to meet all of the president’s strategic goals. Pro-administration analysts, including former Trump defense official Ezra Cohen, now at the conservative Hudson Institute, argue that the strikes have severely degraded Iran’s conventional military capabilities and weakened its proxy networks across the Middle East, leaving the U.S. with greater flexibility to target Iranian nuclear facilities if needed.

    Still, the ongoing conflict shows no sign of ending: 82nd Airborne Division troops deployed to the Middle East more than six months ago are now expected to remain in the region through 2027 with no clear exit strategy. For Trump and Hegseth, the dual challenge of overhauling the Pentagon’s culture and leadership while waging a costly, protracted conflict in the Gulf has created an unprecedented test of U.S. military stability, one that could shape the legacy of Trump’s second term and the future of U.S. global power for decades to come.

  • Israel bans 11 British MPs and announces closure of UK consulate in East Jerusalem

    Israel bans 11 British MPs and announces closure of UK consulate in East Jerusalem

    A major diplomatic rift has erupted between the United Kingdom and Israel after London formally recognized the illegality of Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory and imposed sweeping sanctions on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, prompting immediate counter-sanctions from Jerusalem.

    On Tuesday, UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband announced the landmark policy shift in parliament, confirming that the British government now aligns with the 2024 International Court of Justice advisory opinion, which ruled Israel’s decades-long occupation of Palestinian land unlawful. Miliband added that London officially recognizes ongoing ethnic cleansing of Palestinian communities in the occupied West Bank carried out by extremist Israeli settlers, noting that the Israeli government has repeatedly failed to intervene, and in many cases, facilitated forced displacement of local populations.

    Alongside the formal recognition, the UK introduced comprehensive sanctions targeting Israeli settlements and a full ban on all arms licenses and exports that could materially support Israel’s illegal occupation. The announcement quickly drew international backing: 11 other nations including Canada, France, Spain, and Sweden joined the UK in a joint statement committing to introduce national trade restrictions on settlement goods or explore such measures under their domestic legal frameworks. Both France and Canada have already confirmed they will implement bans on settlement goods on Wednesday, a step widely viewed as a key diplomatic win for the UK’s new policy.

    Within hours of Miliband’s announcement, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar unveiled a package of retaliatory measures targeting the UK. In a televised address Tuesday afternoon, Saar stated Israel would shut down the UK consulate in occupied East Jerusalem, expel all British representatives from the US-led International Gaza Support Center (IGSC) — a body established to monitor the fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas — and end all British training programs for Palestinian security forces.

    Saar also announced a travel ban barring 11 British Members of Parliament from entering Israeli territory. The list of banned politicians includes former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, independent MP Zarah Sultana, six current Labour MPs (Naz Shah, Diane Abbott, John McDonnell, Richard Burgon), and all three serving Green Party MPs (Carla Denyer, Adrian Ramsay, Ellie Chowns) alongside two additional Green Party figures Sian Berry and Hannah Spencer. A separate ban was also issued for Fahad Ansari, a British lawyer who led legal efforts to reverse Hamas’ designation as a terrorist organization in UK courts.

    Saar dismissed the UK’s boycott of settlement goods as “despicable”, doubling down on Israel’s long-standing claim of full sovereignty over all of Jerusalem. “A united Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, will always remain the capital of Israel and is under its full sovereignty,” he said. “We will also take additional retaliatory measures based on our discretion. The message to any government that seeks to harm us is clear: Those who act against Israel, Israel will act against them, and they will lose their influence and relevance in the region.”

    This is not the first time Israel has removed Western nations from the IGSC over settlement trade bans. Israel recently expelled Dutch representatives from the body after the Netherlands implemented its own restriction on settlement goods, and expelled Spanish delegates earlier this year over what it called Madrid’s “obsessive anti-Israel bias”.

    Responding to the entry ban, a spokesperson for the UK Green Party rejected Israeli pressure and reaffirmed the party’s support for Palestinian rights. “We will not be bullied into silence by the Israeli government. We are proud of our MPs for standing up for Palestinian rights and demanding an end to British complicity in genocide and illegal occupation,” the spokesperson said. “These threats only strengthen our resolve. The British government must stand firm and follow these overdue restrictions with a full arms embargo and wide-ranging sanctions.”

    The latest diplomatic escalation marks a historic turning point in Western policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as a growing bloc of industrialized nations moves beyond rhetorical criticism of Israeli settlements to implement concrete economic and diplomatic measures to oppose the illegal occupation.

  • ‘Standing up for freedom’: British politicians react to UK sanctions on Israeli settlements

    ‘Standing up for freedom’: British politicians react to UK sanctions on Israeli settlements

    The United Kingdom government’s landmark announcement of sweeping sanctions targeting illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian West Bank has triggered a wave of divided reactions across British political circles, with cross-party praise balanced by fierce opposition and calls for bolder action. Alongside the sanctions package, the UK government formally recognized the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, declared Israel’s long-running occupation of Palestinian territory illegal under international law, and implemented a full ban on arms licenses and all other exports that materially support the ongoing occupation. The move gained immediate international reinforcement, as both France and Canada confirmed they would also introduce bans on trade with goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements, a development that has been framed as a key diplomatic win for Downing Street.

    Debate over the new measures dominated parliamentary discussions on Tuesday, where political factions split sharply over the policy. Shadow Foreign Secretary Tom Tugendhat emerged as a leading critic from the opposition benches, arguing that the government had unnecessarily oversimplified the region’s long-standing complex conflict by framing the issue in unnuanced terms. “This isn’t about Israel alone and it certainly isn’t about reducing the complexity of the region to a single sentence. Sadly, the government is in the process of doing just that,” Tugendhat told parliament. Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband pushed back immediately, challenging Tugendhat’s contradictory stance on the two-state solution: “The underlying problem of his position is this: he supports the two-state solution with great vigour. He believes in the two-state solution. He sees the two-state solution being destroyed before our eyes. And I’m afraid his prescription is to do nothing about it.”

    Not all Conservative MPs lined up against the policy, however. Edward Leigh, the long-serving Father of the House and a senior figure in Conservative Friends of Israel, broke ranks to publicly back the government’s actions. “What is happening in the West Bank is absolutely violent and egregious. It is worse than stopping the two-state solution, it is ethnic cleansing,” Leigh said. “I am proud to say, as the longest-serving member of the Conservative Friends of Israel, that I absolutely and fully support what he is doing today, because it is about standing up for freedom, for morality, and justice of all people in this world.”

    Labour lawmakers broadly supported the new measures, with many long-time campaigners for Palestinian rights hailing the announcement as a historic turning point. Abtisam Mohamed, a Foreign Affairs Committee member who has led calls for a trade ban on settlement goods, praised the decision and pressed the government on its stance regarding the International Criminal Court’s existing arrest warrants against senior Israeli ministers. Miliband confirmed the government “absolutely” backs the ICC’s judicial work, in a further rebuke to Israeli and international opposition to the court’s investigations. Liberal Democrat MP Andrew George joked that aside from “Netanyahu’s fan club”, the entire House of Commons supported the government’s move, while senior Labour MP Naz Shah called the announcement a moment of British leadership, saying “today Britain has led” and that she was “proud of the government”.

    While welcoming the sanctions as a long-overdue step, smaller parties and independent figures argued the measures do not go far enough to meet the UK’s international legal obligations. Green Party Foreign Spokesperson Ellie Chowns said her party had long campaigned for such action and supported the announcement, but added that continuing military and intelligence cooperation with Israel amid ongoing civilian harm in Gaza and the West Bank remained a “shameful failure” to uphold international law. Chowns called for a full two-way arms embargo, broader sanctions on officials behind settlement expansion, an end to all intelligence and military cooperation, and withdrawal from the UK-Israel Trade and Partnership Agreement, noting that existing F-35 component exports through international supply chains must also be halted.

    Former Scottish First Minister Humza Yousaf echoed those calls, describing the announcement as a “significant step in the right direction” but urging the government to end all arms supplies to Israel, including components for the F-35 program. Yousaf also called for expanded sanctions on Israeli ministers pushing annexation, and for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – who is subject to an ICC arrest warrant – to be declared persona non grata in the UK. He warned that Downing Street would face intense pressure from Washington and the Israeli government to reverse course, saying “the prime minister and foreign secretary must hold their nerve.” Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn went further, calling on the government to end all trade and military cooperation that sustains Israel’s unlawful presence, recognize the genocide in Gaza, and launch a public inquiry into British complicity in the conflict.

    The most vehement opposition came from Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice, who launched an inflammatory attack claiming the government was “anti-Jew” and that the sanctions would embolden antisemitic hate crime across the UK. Tice posted on X, referring to the administration as a “hard left, anti Jew Burnham Govt”, referencing Prime Minister Andy Burnham, who took office in July.

    According to insider sources from Whitehall, Tuesday’s announcement marks the start of a fundamental shift in UK foreign policy towards the region, with further measures expected in the coming months. Burnham has not spoken to Netanyahu since becoming prime minister, and it was confirmed that he briefed U.S. President Donald Trump on his plans for sanctions during a call on Monday afternoon. The announcement represents an unusually bold break from U.S. policy, as Downing Street pushed ahead with the measures despite private appeals from Washington to abandon the plan. With France and Canada joining the UK in implementing new restrictions on settlement trade, the coordinated action by three of the U.S.’s closest historical allies is being widely perceived as a major diplomatic rebuke of Washington’s long-standing pro-Israel policy in the Middle East, and is expected to ramp up international pressure on Israel to halt its ongoing expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank.

  • Sanctions on Israeli settlements: Here’s what Europe is saying and doing

    Sanctions on Israeli settlements: Here’s what Europe is saying and doing

    A coordinated diplomatic push led by the United Kingdom has sent tensions between Israel and multiple European states soaring, after 12 European nations unveiled plans this week for new national sanctions targeting Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, a move that has already triggered sharp retaliation from the Israeli government.

    The landmark announcement on Tuesday followed months of growing international outcry over escalating violent attacks on Palestinian communities by Israeli settlers and the ongoing expansion of illegal settlement infrastructure under the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It also comes more than two years after the International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued a formal 2024 ruling confirming that Israeli settlements across the occupied West Bank violate international law, a decision that has provided the legal foundation for many nations’ restrictive measures.

    Speaking to the UK Parliament as the coordinated measures were revealed, UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband used unusually sharp rhetoric for a senior Western government minister, stating that the sanctions were introduced in response to the ongoing “ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in areas of the West Bank perpetrated by settler terrorists”. Miliband further accused the Netanyahu administration of deliberately turning a blind eye to the forced displacement of Palestinian residents, noting that more than 450,000 Israeli settlers currently reside in the occupied territory. The UK’s new package of measures, among the strictest national policies adopted to date, targets the import of settlement-produced goods, restricts investment in settlement-based businesses and real estate, and bans the promotion of settlement-based services. Miliband emphasized that the action targets the Israeli government, not the Israeli people.

    Shortly after the UK’s announcement, French Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot confirmed Paris would adopt matching restrictions. “France cannot, through its trade, support a situation that threatens the security of Israelis and Palestinians alike,” Barrot said in an official statement. Before this week, France had only imposed sanctions on approximately 50 individual extremist settlers and unapproved outpost organizations, rather than a broad trade ban. Barrot has repeatedly called for a full EU-wide ban on settlement goods, drawing a direct comparison to the bloc’s immediate trade restrictions on Crimea after Russia’s 2014 annexation, arguing the same standard must be applied to illegal Israeli settlements. “The settlements are illegal. It is not normal that the European Union can support this trade,” he stated earlier this month.

    The 12 signatory nations — the UK, France, Spain, Ireland, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Portugal — released a joint statement confirming their commitment to either implement national trade restrictions on settlement goods or actively support binding EU-wide restrictions, in line with each country’s domestic legislative processes.

    Many of the signatory nations have already moved forward with national restrictions ahead of this week’s joint announcement. Spain, one of the most vocal European critics of Israeli policy under Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez’s centre-left government, implemented a full ban on settlement imports in September 2025, requiring all goods from Israel and the occupied territories to disclose their origin postcode and imposing penalties for non-compliance. Madrid has also adopted broader restrictive measures, including an arms embargo on Israel, restrictions on military-related vessels and aircraft using Spanish infrastructure, and formal recognition of Palestinian statehood, moves that have severely strained bilateral ties with Israel and triggered trade tariffs from the United States.

    Ireland implemented its own partial ban on settlement goods in July 2026, after a 2018 proposal was watered down amid political and economic pressure. The Netherlands will bring its three-year ban on settlement goods into force on September 22, and Belgium’s cabinet approved a full import ban earlier this summer ahead of final parliamentary review. Norway tabled a full trade and services ban in June, with public consultation on the proposal closing mid-September, while Iceland joined South Africa’s ICJ genocide case against Israel earlier this year.

    Still, a number of nations have signaled they prefer to wait for collective EU action rather than impose unilateral measures. Sweden, Denmark, and Finland all confirmed they would only move forward with restrictions as part of a coordinated bloc-wide policy, despite signing Tuesday’s joint statement. This divide mirrors long-standing deadlock within the European Union over a proposed bloc-wide ban on settlement goods, which has stalled for months due to opposition from key member states Germany and Italy. Neither country joined Tuesday’s joint declaration, though Germany has repeatedly stated it opposes settlement expansion as a violation of international law and is currently facing its own ICJ case over its continued arms sales to Israel. Right-wing-led Austria has also opposed EU-wide measures, while Slovenia’s new conservative government reversed a 2025 national import ban and other anti-Israel sanctions shortly after taking office in June, a move that earned warm praise from Tel Aviv.

    Israeli officials have responded to the new sanctions with swift and aggressive retaliation. In the wake of the UK’s announcement, Israel closed the British consulate in occupied East Jerusalem, expelled British representatives from the International Gaza Support Center, and issued entry bans for 11 non-governmental British members of parliament. Tensions between London and Tel Aviv had already risen sharply last month, after Netanyahu sparked outrage in the UK Parliament by labeling the country the “Islamic Republic of Britain”. Bilateral relations between Israel and other European capitals, including the Netherlands and Spain, have already deteriorated sharply in recent months following the adoption of individual national measures.

  • Israeli settlements: What does the ICJ ruling require Britain and other states do?

    Israeli settlements: What does the ICJ ruling require Britain and other states do?

    On a historic Tuesday in the UK Parliament, Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband unveiled long-awaited measures aligning British government policy with a landmark 2024 legal ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the United Nations’ highest judicial body. In a speech marking a sharp break from decades of ambiguous British policy, Miliband explicitly declared Israel’s decades-long occupation of Palestinian territory illegal, announced sweeping new sanctions targeting Israeli settlements, and implemented a full ban on arms licenses and all exports that materially contribute to sustaining the occupation.

    Miliband further stated that the UK government has concluded Israeli settlers are perpetrating ethnic cleansing against Palestinian communities in the occupied West Bank, accusing the Israeli government of deliberately ignoring these widespread abuses and actively condoning the forced displacement of Palestinian people. “For a long time, the British government has correctly acknowledged that Israeli settlements are illegal under international law, but we have remained silent on the broader question of the legality of the entire occupation,” Miliband told lawmakers. “Today, I announce that the official view of the British Government is that the occupation is unlawful, because of Israel’s entrenchment of its control, its stated intention to extend permanent sovereignty over the territory, and its expansionist agenda pursued through illegal settlements.”

    Miliband’s announcement represents the clearest endorsement to date from the United Kingdom of the ICJ’s landmark July 19, 2024, advisory opinion. The ruling, requested by the UN General Assembly, formally confirmed the illegality of Israel’s decades-long occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, ordered all Israeli settlers to withdraw from occupied Palestinian territory, and mandated that all governments take action to end any support that sustains Israel’s unlawful presence in the region.

    These findings have taken on renewed urgency in recent months as Israel accelerates settlement expansion, including advancing construction tenders for the controversial E1 project. British and international officials have repeatedly warned that the E1 development would split the occupied West Bank into disconnected fragments, eliminating any possibility of establishing a geographically contiguous and viable Palestinian state.

    The UK did not act alone: on the same day as Miliband’s announcement, 11 other nations—Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden—joined the UK in signing a joint international statement. The signatories confirmed their intention to introduce national restrictions on trade in goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements, or support European Union-wide restrictions, with many nations actively evaluating additional measures in line with their domestic legislative procedures.

    To contextualize the announcement, it is critical to revisit the full scope of the 2024 ICJ advisory opinion. Judges on the court concluded that Israel’s entire continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), not only its isolated settlements, violates international law on multiple overlapping grounds. The court ruled that Israel’s policy of transferring its own civilian population into the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and maintaining their presence there, directly violates the Fourth Geneva Convention’s explicit ban on an occupying power relocating its own citizens into occupied territory.

    Additional findings confirmed that Israel’s seizure of Palestinian land for settlement construction breaches customary international law, that its exploitation of Palestinian natural resources exceeds the legal limits allowed for occupying powers, and that extending Israeli domestic law to settlers in occupied territory has no legal justification. The court also found that Israel’s policies have enforced near-total separation between Palestinian and Israeli civilian populations, violating the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination’s ban on racial segregation and apartheid.

    When combined with state policies designed to push Palestinians to leave their land and widespread settler violence that Israel has systematically failed to prevent, the ICJ concluded these practices amount to de facto annexation of large swathes of the OPT. The court ordered Israel to end its unlawful occupation as rapidly as possible, halt all new settlement construction, withdraw all settlers from occupied territory, repeal all discriminatory legislation related to the occupation, and provide reparations for all harm caused to the Palestinian people.

    The ruling also mandated that all other countries must not recognize Israel’s occupation as legal, must not provide aid or assistance that helps sustain the occupation, and must avoid economic or trade activities that support illegal Israeli settlements. Most fundamentally, the court reaffirmed that the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination is an absolute, peremptory norm of international law, and that Israel’s occupation fundamentally violates this right by fragmenting Palestinian territory, forcing mass displacement of Palestinian communities to alter the territory’s demographic makeup, denying Palestinians permanent sovereignty over their own natural resources, and creating a system of economic dependence that undermines Palestinians’ ability to pursue independent social, economic and cultural development. The court emphasized that the 60-plus year duration of Israel’s policies significantly aggravates this violation.

    Notably, international law experts have flagged a key gap in Miliband’s parliamentary address. While Miliband mentioned the term “self-determination” twice, he did not connect it to the ICJ’s core finding that the occupation violates this fundamental right. Ralph Wilde, a professor of international law at University College London who represented the League of Arab States during the ICJ proceedings, noted in an interview with Middle East Eye (speaking in a personal capacity) that the omission is meaningful, because the right to Palestinian self-determination forms the foundational underpinning of the court’s entire ruling.

    “The core point of the ruling is that Israel should not be there at all. This is not Israel’s sovereign territory, and its presence is a direct violation of Palestinian self-determination,” Wilde explained. “It is incorrect to omit the most important finding, which is that this is a violation of Palestinian self-determination. That omission misleadingly frames the issue as narrower than the fundamental denial of Palestinian freedom itself—a denial that has persisted since 1967.”

    In the period following the ICJ’s 2024 ruling, settlement expansion has accelerated dramatically. By 2025, the annual rate of settlement growth hit its highest level since 2017, with an average of roughly 12,815 new housing units added each year. The total number of official Israeli settlements and unauthorized outposts grew from 141 in 2022 to approximately 210 by 2026. Israel has continued to advance the E1 project near Jerusalem, which would permanently break the territorial continuity of the West Bank and eliminate any realistic path to an independent Palestinian state.

    In September 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution A/RES/ES-10/24 by a vote of 124 to 14, with 43 abstentions, translating the ICJ’s findings into binding, concrete demands. The resolution gave Israel a 12-month deadline, expiring in September 2025, to end its unlawful presence in the OPT, and required all UN member states to halt imports of settlement goods and stop transferring arms that could be used in the occupied territory. At the time, the UK abstained from the vote, arguing it did not dispute the ICJ’s core findings but claimed the resolution lacked “sufficient clarity” to advance a negotiated two-state settlement. The September 2025 deadline passed without any compliance from Israel.

    To date, most UN member states have failed to implement the ICJ ruling or meet the requirements of the General Assembly resolution. However, a growing bloc of European countries have begun taking incremental steps to fulfill their international legal obligations. Spain implemented a full ban on settlement goods imports in September 2025, Ireland enacted similar legislation in July 2026, and Belgium approved its own import ban that same month. The Netherlands adopted new restrictions on the import, purchase and sale of settlement goods, set to enter into force on September 22. Slovenia introduced restrictions in 2025, but its new government repealed the import ban in June 2026.

    Norway strengthened official business guidance after the 2024 ICJ ruling, advising domestic companies against engaging in activities that sustain Israel’s occupation, and opened a public consultation in June 2026 on draft legislation to restrict settlement imports, exports and relevant property and service transactions. With Tuesday’s announcement, the UK, France and Canada have now joined the group of nations pledging national restrictions on settlement goods trade, bringing the total number of countries backing new measures to 12.

  • What will Britain’s new sanctions on Israeli settlements actually target?

    What will Britain’s new sanctions on Israeli settlements actually target?

    On Tuesday, Britain’s new Labour government delivered a landmark shift in Middle East policy, as Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband unveiled the country’s most aggressive sanctions package to date targeting the infrastructure sustaining Israel’s illegal settlement expansion in the occupied Palestinian West Bank. The announcement followed months of behind-the-scenes preparations, triggered by Israel’s late August decision to tender construction for more than 1,200 new residential units in the strategic E1 corridor, a development widely deemed to cut off Palestinian access to East Jerusalem and kill any prospect of a contiguous Palestinian state.

    Addressing Members of Parliament, Miliband made an unprecedented public accusation: that systemic ethnic cleansing is ongoing in the occupied West Bank, a statement that marks a clear break from decades of muted diplomatic language by successive British governments. For generations, both Labour and Conservative administrations limited punitive measures to individual violent settlers, avoiding broad action targeting the entire settlement enterprise. This new package, however, directly attacks the economic and financial networks that enable settlement growth.

    Under the new measures, the UK will implement a full ban on all imports of goods produced in Israeli settlements located on illegally occupied Palestinian territory. Beyond goods restrictions, Miliband announced targeted action against any company or individual that provides construction, financial or other professional services to support settlement expansion, warning that violators “will face the full force of UK sanctions.” Advertisements promoting illegal settlements to UK consumers will also be prohibited entirely.

    On arms sales, the government is implementing what Miliband called a “double lock” framework. More than 30 existing arms licenses for equipment used by Israeli forces in Gaza, which were suspended shortly after the Labour government took office, will remain fully suspended. Going forward, all new license applications for arms or related exports that “materially contribute to the occupation” will be automatically rejected, and this ban will remain in place for as long as Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory continues.

    Miliband also expanded restrictions to the charitable sector, announcing new bans and limits on UK-based charities that actively promote settlement activity. For years, a number of British Jewish charities have fundraised for settlements and marketed settlement-built homes to UK buyers, with many benefiting from the UK’s Gift Aid tax program, which allows charities to reclaim tax on donations — effectively using British taxpayer money to subsidize activity that violates international law. In August, the UK Charity Commission opened a formal investigation following revelations that at least 32 charities registered in England and Wales had transferred more than £28 million to Israeli settlements, a probe that aligns with the government’s new regulatory push.

    The new sanctions have already drawn sharp condemnation from pro-Israel lobbying groups, and U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee publicly lashed out at the measures on Tuesday, threatening that Washington will take unspecified retaliatory action. Downing Street has sought to downplay broader ramifications, however, emphasizing that the new restrictions will not alter the UK’s long-standing overall trade, military and security partnership with Israel.

    Data underscores the potential impact of the new measures, particularly on the financial side. A 2024 report from the Don’t Buy into Occupation campaign found the UK was one of the largest global sources of financing for 58 companies active in the settlement economy, with UK financial institutions providing at least $49.3 billion in loans and underwriting services to these firms between January 2021 and August 2024. As a top global financial hub, the UK sits at the center of a sprawling web of investment, mortgages, insurance and construction services that settlements depend on to expand. When fully implemented, the service restrictions will require UK banks, pension funds and asset managers to divest from companies operating in settlements, and bar domestic financial institutions from offering the mortgage, insurance and other core services that sustain the settlement ecosystem.

    Economists note that while the measures target the settlement economy, their overall impact on total UK-Israel trade will be minor. Total bilateral trade between the two countries hit roughly £6 billion in 2025, and settlement-related activity makes up only a small share of that volume. Israel does not publish official data on the economic output of settlements, but a February 2025 study from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) estimated that settlements in Area C of the West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem generated $53 billion in economic activity for Israel in 2024 alone, with cumulative output from 2000 to 2024 reaching $832.7 billion — more than $1 trillion when adjusted for inflation.

    Policy analysts say the core goals of the new sanctions are threefold: to shrink the settlement economy, raise the financial cost of activities that entrench Israel’s occupation, and increase the reputational risk for companies that do business in occupied Palestinian territories. The uncertainty created by the new rules is already expected to push some domestic and international companies to step back from settlement-related activity, as compliance and reputational concerns outweigh potential profits.

  • France and Canada to follow UK in announcing sanctions on Israeli settlements

    France and Canada to follow UK in announcing sanctions on Israeli settlements

    Multiple senior Whitehall sources have confirmed to Middle East Eye that the United Kingdom is set to formally announce a ban on imports of goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories on Tuesday, with key allies France and Canada poised to join the coordinated diplomatic action.

    This joint initiative marks a defining shift in international policy toward Israel’s ongoing settlement expansion, a move that will significantly deepen the Israeli government’s diplomatic isolation globally while delivering a landmark policy win for UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s administration, which took office in July this year.

    Downing Street’s decision to move forward with the import ban has already put it at odds with the United States, a rare public rift between close transatlantic allies. Washington has privately pressured the British government to abandon the measures, but Burnham’s administration has pressed ahead regardless, defying US objections.

    While the policy commands broad public support across Britain, it has drawn fierce pushback from domestic opposition groups. Reform UK, the country’s leading right-wing opposition party, has already levelled accusations that the Burnham government is anti-Semitic over the planned measures.

    The expected participation of France and Canada is widely expected to strengthen the UK’s position, amplify international pressure on the Netanyahu government to halt its settlement expansion, and make the coordinated diplomatic action far more impactful than a unilateral British move. The joint action by three long-standing US allies is also being interpreted as a clear, public rebuke of Washington’s current pro-Israel policy in the Middle East.

    UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband is scheduled to lay out the full details of the new settlement goods ban and a broader package of measures targeting Israeli settlement activity during an address to the UK Parliament on Tuesday afternoon. A senior Labour Party source, speaking on condition of anonymity on Monday, confirmed that the prime minister and foreign secretary will use the announcement to lay out a “comprehensive reset” of the British government’s approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

    Middle East Eye first reported in August that Burnham’s government had made the decision to implement a settlement goods ban. Senior Whitehall sources have clarified that Tuesday’s announcement is only the opening step of this new foreign policy framework, with additional measures expected to be rolled out in the coming months.

    Since taking office in July, Burnham has not held any official talks with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Downing Street confirmed Monday that Burnham briefed US President Donald Trump on the planned sanctions during a call held Monday afternoon, despite Trump administration’s private lobbying against the move.

    The announcement comes at a critical juncture for the occupied West Bank. Israel’s newly advanced E1 settlement project, located east of Jerusalem, threatens to physically split the West Bank into two disconnected parts, destroying any remaining prospects for a contiguous Palestinian state as part of a two-state solution. Analysts note that this coordinated international ban on settlement goods could carry substantial political and economic weight at this pivotal moment, sending a clear message that the international community will not tolerate unilateral changes to the status quo.

  • US officials threaten retaliation against UK over Israeli settlements sanctions

    US officials threaten retaliation against UK over Israeli settlements sanctions

    A sharp diplomatic clash has erupted between the United States and the United Kingdom after London unveiled plans to impose new trade restrictions on goods originating from illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories, with senior American figures openly threatening retaliatory action against Britain.

    The first public rebuke came from Mike Huckabee, the sitting US Ambassador to Israel, who indicated in comments to the BBC on Tuesday morning that the Trump administration was prepared to hit back against the UK over the proposed policy. Huckabee framed the UK’s planned ban on settlement-produced goods as blatant bias against the Jewish community, calling it an act of discrimination. He also floated the idea that individual US states, most notably Florida, could launch their own independent trade measures against British businesses.

    This is not the first time Huckabee has lashed out at UK leadership over its stance on Israel. Over the preceding weekend, the ambassador already leveled accusations of “Jew hate” against British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband – who is Jewish himself – in response to Miliband’s public criticism of Israeli military operations in Gaza.

    Florida-based Republican Congressman Randy Fine doubled down on Huckabee’s threats just one day later, issuing a stark warning that British firms could be completely locked out of commercial activity across the state of Florida if the UK moves forward with the ban. Fine derided the UK’s policy as a “vanity project in support of Muslim terror”, and referenced an anti-boycott law he shepherded through the Florida Legislature during his tenure that would enable the state to penalize entities that comply with the UK’s restrictions. Under the existing law, any British company forced to adhere to the UK settlement ban would be prohibited from securing government contracts at both the state and local level in Florida. The restriction would also extend to all commercial operations in the state that require official government interaction – from operating permits to tax-related processes. Fine stressed that Florida ranks among the UK’s largest US trading partners, and warned that the policy could cost British stakeholders billions of dollars in lost economic activity. “Any company – or nation – that boycotts Israel is boycotted by Florida,” Fine emphasized in his statement.

    Behind closed doors, Washington has already made its opposition clear: multiple sources familiar with the matter confirm US officials privately pressed the British government to scrap the planned ban before it was formally introduced. UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham, for his part, personally briefed US President Donald Trump on his government’s proposal during a call on Monday afternoon, according to reports.

    The diplomatic row has also drawn sharp pushback from Israeli leadership, with far-right Israeli cabinet ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich calling on Monday night for Jerusalem to retaliate against the UK by imposing its own sanctions and expelling the British ambassador – a demand that also brought the long-disputed Falkland Islands sovereignty issue into the fray. While both Argentina and the UK claim full sovereignty over the South Atlantic archipelago, an overwhelming majority of the Falklands’ 3,600 permanent residents endorse continued British rule. The dispute gained new traction just last week, when Trump publicly stated he would not support the UK militarily if Argentina launched an invasion to retake the islands. To date, Trump has not issued any public comment on the UK’s proposed settlement sanctions.

    Ed Miliband is scheduled to lay out the full details of the UK’s new Israel-related policy package in a address to parliament scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, leaving waiting for the next chapter of this unfolding international dispute.

  • Tung Chee-hwa, Hong Kong’s first post-colonial leader, dies at age 89

    Tung Chee-hwa, Hong Kong’s first post-colonial leader, dies at age 89

    Tung Chee-hwa, the shipping magnate who made history as Hong Kong’s first chief executive after the territory’s 1997 handover from British to Chinese rule, has passed away at the age of 89. In an official statement released this week, his office confirmed that Tung died peacefully on Tuesday, surrounded by his immediate family.

    Before taking the top post in Hong Kong’s new post-colonial government, Tung had virtually no formal political experience. A pro-Beijing panel of local elites selected him for the role ahead of the handover, a choice widely attributed to Beijing’s perception of him as a trusted loyalist who would align with the central government’s directives. His ties to Beijing ran deep: in the 1980s, state-owned Chinese banks stepped in to bail out his family’s struggling shipping firm, Orient Overseas Container Line, during a global industry downturn.

    The early years of Hong Kong’s handover were an unprecedented, sensitive period. The framework of “one country, two systems” — which guaranteed the territory would retain its existing civil liberties and separate governing systems for 50 years, while Beijing reserved authority over constitutional change and foreign affairs — had never been put to the test when Tung took office.

    While Tung earned praise for his relentless work ethic, earning him the affectionate nickname “7-11” for his habit of working 12-hour, seven-days-a-week schedules, his tenure was marked by repeated crises that eroded public support. His awkward political handling and perceived indecision during emergencies turned public opinion against him, and a less flattering, mocking nickname, “Old Dumb Tung,” began to circulate among residents.

    Within months of assuming office in 1997, two major crises struck. Hong Kong reported the world’s first documented human cases of H5N1 avian influenza, followed quickly by the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis that sent the territory’s economy into a deep recession. Tung’s administration drew widespread criticism for its response to both crises, and his well-documented distrust of the media left him unable to rebuild public trust or rehabilitate his image. Frequent policy missteps also turned him into a common target of public jokes and satire.

    Despite the deep unpopularity of his first term, Tung was re-elected unopposed in 2002 by a pro-Beijing electoral committee, the only body tasked with selecting the chief executive at the time. In 2003, he faced an even greater challenge when the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) outbreak hit Hong Kong, killing nearly 300 people and bringing the city’s already fragile economy to a near-standstill. His government was widely accused of a slow, disorganized response that worsened the outbreak’s impact.

    Later that same year, Tung sparked mass public anger when his administration introduced draft national anti-subversion legislation, known locally as Article 23. Critics argued the bill would erode Hong Kong’s core civil liberties guaranteed under the handover framework, prompting an estimated 500,000 Hong Kong residents to join a mass street protest against the legislation. The bill was eventually shelved in the wake of the public backlash.

    In 2004, another large-scale pro-democracy rally was held to demand full universal suffrage for the selection of the chief executive and the entire Legislative Council. Tung aligned firmly with Beijing’s Communist leadership, which rejected the demand, and the rally became an annual tradition for pro-democracy activists for more than a decade. Political analysts widely view these mass demonstrations as a signal to Beijing that Tung had lost traction with the Hong Kong public and was no longer able to maintain political stability in the territory.

    In March 2005, Tung announced his resignation from the post of chief executive, insisting that declining health was the sole reason for his departure, rather than pressure from Beijing. “If I continue as chief executive, I won’t be able to handle it,” he stated at the time. Many observers and residents remained skeptical of the explanation, as no obvious serious health issues had been reported in the months leading up to his resignation.

    Born in 1937, Tung’s early life traced the trajectory of many prominent Hong Kong families. His family moved from Shanghai to Hong Kong in 1947, two years before the founding of the People’s Republic of China. He earned a bachelor’s degree in marine engineering from the University of Liverpool in the United Kingdom in 1960, then worked for General Electric in the United States and gained experience in his family’s shipping business before returning to Hong Kong permanently in 1969.

    After stepping down as chief executive, Tung founded a pro-Beijing think tank in Hong Kong and remained a vocal loyalist to the central government through all major political turning points, including the massive 2019 pro-democracy protests and the subsequent national security crackdown. During the height of the 2019 protests, Tung was among 42 public figures awarded national medals and honors by Chinese President Xi Jinping at a Beijing ceremony, recognized for his contributions to advancing the implementation of the “one country, two systems” policy.

    Following the passage of Beijing’s national security law for Hong Kong in 2020, the large-scale pro-democracy protests that defined much of Tung’s tenure were eliminated from the city’s public sphere. Earlier this year, Hong Kong’s current government finally passed the long-delayed Article 23 anti-subversion legislation first proposed during Tung’s tenure. Tung had not appeared at any public events in Hong Kong or mainland China for several years before his death.