标签： Asia

A growing wave of cross-party pressure in the United Kingdom is pushing the ruling Labour government toward a historic policy shift: an imminent ban on imports of goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territories, multiple insiders have confirmed to independent outlet Middle East Eye.

Just two years ago, the Labour Party held a firm position opposing any form of sanctions or boycotts targeting Israel. That stance has undergone a complete ideological reversal in recent months, with senior party figures now openly endorsing a settlement goods ban as a necessary step aligned with international law. Sources close to the government confirm that Middle East Minister Hamish Falconer privately told Labour MPs late last year that such a ban is a desirable policy outcome, though final authority rests with 10 Downing Street.

The push for action draws its legal foundation from the 2024 International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory ruling, which formally deemed Israel’s long-standing occupation of Palestinian territory illegal under international law. The ICJ ruled that all UN member states have a legal obligation to avoid providing aid or assistance to the occupation. Two years on from that ruling, proponents of the ban argue the UK is falling far behind its European allies in upholding this obligation.

Across the European Union, momentum for restriction has accelerated sharply in recent months. France and Sweden recently tabled a joint proposal calling for the bloc to implement strict mandatory import controls on settlement goods, while the Netherlands enacted a national ban on trade in goods originating from occupied Palestinian territories last month. This shifting European landscape has created a clear opening for the UK to align with allied action.

The ongoing shifts in global geopolitics, particularly the US-Israeli standoff with Iran, have also reduced the Starmer government’s willingness to defer to Washington’s preferences on Middle East policy, insiders note.

A parliamentary debate on the proposed ban is already scheduled, secured by Abtisam Mohamed, a Labour MP serving on the parliamentary Foreign Affairs Committee (FAC) which oversees government foreign policy. While a final date for the debate has not been confirmed, the event is expected to amplify pressure on Downing Street to act. Mohamed argues that the UK’s current inaction is inconsistent with its stated commitment to a rules-based international order, pointing to a clear precedent: the UK already enforces strict trade sanctions on Russian-occupied territories of Ukraine. “If we can impose strict sanctions on Russian-occupied territories under the Russian Sanctions Guidance, why not Israeli-occupied territories?” Mohamed asked.

On-the-ground data underscores the urgency of action for advocates. Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem records that Israel has forcibly displaced 59 Palestinian communities, comprising more than 4,000 people, from the West Bank since 7 October 2023. The United Nations documented nearly 2,000 separate settler attacks against Palestinian communities in 2025, an average of roughly five violent incidents per day.

Emily Thornberry, senior Labour MP and chair of the FAC, whose views carry significant weight among both cabinet ministers and backbench MPs, has emerged as a leading voice for aggressive action. She described the ongoing situation in occupied Palestinian territory as “intolerable, and yet we tolerate it,” arguing that the UK must impose tangible economic costs to end settlement expansion. “We should be banning the import of goods produced in illegal settlements. We should be placing sanctions on those involved in the settlements. We should be making sure we are stopping the involvement of any British companies,” Thornberry laid out. “We should be coming down hard on insurance networks. We should be making it clear that it is not possible to construct settlements on the West Bank, and we are going to do everything to stop it.”

The Starmer government has already taken incremental steps to signal disapproval of settlement activity. In May 2025, it imposed sanctions on multiple prominent Israeli settlers in the West Bank, including veteran far-right activist Daniella Weiss, head of the Nachala settlement movement. The following month, the UK joined a coalition of allied nations in sanctioning two far-right Israeli cabinet ministers—National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich—over their repeated incitement of violence against Palestinian communities in Gaza and the West Bank.

A Foreign Office spokesperson reaffirmed the government’s public stance in a statement to Middle East Eye, noting: “We have strongly and repeatedly condemned settler violence and the expansion of illegal settlements, and we have imposed sanctions both on those responsible for that violence and on individual members of the Israeli cabinet for inciting it. We continue to call on the Israeli authorities to clamp down on all those who are seeking to inflame tensions, and to tackle the unacceptable violence and destruction of property that is being committed by settler groups against Palestinian communities.”

But progressive and opposition MPs argue these incremental measures are not enough, and that the current voluntary labelling policy for settlement goods is woefully insufficient. In response to criticism, the government has noted that its current guidance requires accurate labelling of settlement goods to avoid misleading consumers, and that it publishes clear risk warnings for UK businesses operating in settlements.

Kim Johnson, a Labour MP and prominent advocate for action on Israeli violations of international law, said the UK should have imposed sweeping restrictions long ago. “Our government cannot claim to support a rules-based international order, while allowing economic and political support to flow to activities that violate international law,” Johnson said. Scottish National Party trade spokesperson Chris Law echoed this criticism, arguing that voluntary labelling does not go far enough to uphold the UK’s legal and moral obligations. “Imported settlement products should not be labelled as such for the benefit of consumers, they should be banned so that the UK is no longer involved in this immoral trade and to demonstrate to Israel that flagrant breaches of international law will not be tolerated,” Law said, noting that “it is time for the UK government to stop making excuses.”

Green Party foreign affairs spokesperson Ellie Chowns, whose party made major gains in recent UK local elections amid voter anger over Labour’s Middle East policy, called on the government to go even further than a settlement goods ban, demanding additional sanctions on all Israeli officials responsible for authorizing illegal settlement activity. She called the Labour government’s current approach “an utter failure of our legal and moral obligations”, describing settlement goods as the “proceeds of crime”. Independent MP Shockat Adam, who traveled to the occupied West Bank for a fact-finding mission last year, added that settlement expansion is directly driving the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, arguing that “international law cannot be applied only when it is politically convenient”.

Insiders note that the UK is unlikely to enact a ban unilaterally, and would most likely move in coordination with European allies such as France and the Netherlands, mirroring the coordinated approach the UK took last year when it joined Australia, Canada, New Zealand and Norway in sanctioning Ben Gvir and Smotrich, and recognized Palestinian statehood alongside France, Canada and Australia last September.

Beyond legal and moral arguments, domestic political pressures are creating a major incentive for the Starmer government to shift its policy. Labour is facing growing erosion of support among its left-wing base over its handling of the Israel-Gaza conflict, with the Green Party capitalizing on this discontent to make major electoral gains in recent local elections.

The coming expected leadership challenge to Prime Minister Keir Starmer in the next few months is widely seen as the most significant factor driving potential policy change. Rank-and-file Labour members are far more critical of Israel than the parliamentary party: a June 2025 poll found that nine out of ten ordinary Labour members believe the UK should adopt a much more critical stance toward Israel than the current government does. All potential leadership candidates, including frontrunner Andy Burnham, Mayor of Greater Manchester, and former Health Secretary Wes Streeting, will face intense pressure from party members to adopt a more strident position on settlement activity and the ongoing crisis in Gaza.

It has already been revealed that Streeting privately supported full sanctions on Israel last year, and he has ramped up public criticism of Israeli policy in recent months. Even Starmer himself may choose to adjust his policy ahead of a leadership contest, in order to undercut potential challengers and win back disaffected left-wing voters.

For the combination of international legal pressure, shifting allied policy, cross-party parliamentary momentum, and domestic political competition, experts say a significant policy shift—at minimum, an import ban on goods from illegal Israeli settlements—has become increasingly likely in the near future.

UNITED NATIONS, New York – In a closely fought secret ballot election held Tuesday, Bangladesh’s Foreign Minister Khalilur Rahman has claimed victory to become the next president of the 193-member United Nations General Assembly, outpacing Cypriot Ambassador Andreas Kakouris by an eight-vote margin. Final vote tallies showed Rahman secured 99 votes to Kakouris’ 91, with three member states abstaining from the process. He will take over the one-year presidential post from Germany’s former Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock when her term concludes this September.

Per longstanding U.N. rules, the General Assembly presidency rotates among regional blocs, and 2025 marks the turn for the Asia-Pacific region to hold the position. While the role is primarily ceremonial in nature, it carries significant global prestige. The General Assembly itself stands as the only U.N. body where every member nation, regardless of size or global influence, holds an equal voice, and it hosts the high-profile annual gathering of world leaders each September. Beyond its symbolic role, the body holds tangible power: it controls the United Nations’ overall operating budget, approves binding international treaties, addresses a sweeping range of global issues from extreme poverty to systemic corruption, and approves hundreds of resolutions that, while not enforceable under international law, carry heavy moral weight as a reflection of collective global public opinion.

In recent years, the General Assembly has taken on an increasingly visible role in responding to major global conflicts, including the ongoing war in Ukraine and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. This elevated profile comes after repeated vetoes blocked action in the U.N. Security Council: Russia has used its veto power to block resolutions on Ukraine, while the United States has repeatedly done the same on measures related to Gaza.

Rahman’s appointment as Bangladesh’s foreign minister came only this February, following a landslide parliamentary election victory for the party of new Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina? No—correction: the election followed a mass student-led national uprising in 2024 that ousted former prime minister Sheikh Hasina, clearing the way for the new government that named Rahman to the foreign minister post. Before taking on his current cabinet role, Rahman served as national security advisor in the interim government led by Nobel Peace Prize winner Muhammad Yunus, and he has previous experience as a national ambassador to other global bodies.

U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres was quick to extend formal congratulations to Rahman following his election win. “Your remarkable political and diplomatic experience are a guarantee of success not only to the General Assembly but to the United Nations as a whole,” Guterres said in his remarks. The Secretary-General also highlighted Rahman’s documented commitment to advancing an ambitious agenda to reform the 80-year-old United Nations, updating its institutional structure to better meet evolving 21st-century challenges.

Addressing assembled diplomats in the General Assembly hall Tuesday, Rahman framed the upcoming 81st session of the body as opening at a critical historical turning point, one where “trust in our organization is being tested on multiple fronts.” He noted that the very conflicts the U.N. was founded to prevent are currently inflicting untold human suffering across the globe, while hard-won development gains remain fragile and uneven, with many regions seeing progress reverse entirely. “Despite advancements in human rights, we witness a general backsliding of certain rights and freedoms across the world and shrinking humanitarian space,” Rahman told attendees.

He added that these global challenges come as the United Nations itself faces significant financial strain, a problem he pledged to tackle collaboratively with all member states. The organization’s budget woes are driven in large part by longstanding arrears from the United States, historically the single largest contributor to the U.N. budget, which currently owes billions of dollars in unpaid dues to the global body.

Israel’s political landscape has been thrown into fresh turmoil after the country’s parliament, the Knesset, took a major step toward self-dissolution that would bring national elections as early as September, months ahead of the originally scheduled October 27 vote. The bill, put forward by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling coalition, passed its first reading late Monday in a landslide vote: 106 lawmakers backed the proposal, with no objections registered from the floor.

The push to dissolve the sitting parliament came directly from ultra-Orthodox political factions that form part of Netanyahu’s governing alliance. United Torah Judaism, a bloc made up of two separate ultra-Orthodox parties, received orders from Dov Lando, spiritual leader of the faction Degel HaTorah, to move forward with dissolving the Knesset. Lando’s directive stemmed from deep and growing anger among ultra-Orthodox communities over the coalition’s failure to pass a sweeping law that would maintain draft exemptions for ultra-Orthodox young men, a longstanding privilege the community has defended fiercely.

The debate over ultra-Orthodox military conscription has escalated to a breaking point against the backdrop of Israel’s ongoing military campaign in Gaza and heightened tensions along borders with Iran and Lebanon. For decades following Israel’s founding in 1948, ultra-Orthodox men have almost universally been exempted from mandatory military service. But senior Israeli military leaders have warned repeatedly that continuing the full exemption amid ongoing high-intensity conflicts would severely undermine the Israel Defense Forces’ operational capacity, creating a critical manpower gap at a time of heightened national security risk.

If the bill completes its legislative process — which requires two additional parliamentary readings before final approval — elections could be held anywhere between September 8 and October 20, adjusting the previously fixed date of October 27. Factional disputes have already emerged over the ideal election date within the ultra-Orthodox community: United Torah Judaism is pushing for a September 1 vote, while Shas, the second ultra-Orthodox party in Netanyahu’s coalition, has requested September 15.

Israel’s Central Elections Committee has already flagged logistical challenges for a September 15 vote, noting that the date falls during a stretch of back-to-back Jewish religious holidays. A vote on this date would force a one-day delay in both vote counting and the publication of official results, the committee warned. The election oversight body has itself become a flashpoint for political tension in recent months. Orly Adas, the committee’s long-serving former director, stepped down in May, explaining her resignation was an effort to prevent partisan efforts to undermine the committee’s independent authority.

Supreme Court President Yitzhak Amit echoed these concerns in remarks delivered Monday, issuing a stark warning against any attempts to cast doubt on or tamper with election outcomes. “If anything can be faked, why believe anything at all?” Amit asked, adding that the spread of baseless claims of electoral fraud poses “a threat to the very existence of the electoral process and to the functioning of the democratic system.”

For Netanyahu, the coming election comes at a time of steep political decline in public opinion polling. A recent poll published by Ma’ariv Friday projected that Netanyahu’s current ruling coalition would only secure up to 52 seats in the 120-seat Knesset, far short of the 61-seat majority required to form a new government. Last week, Channel 13 News reported that Netanyahu is weighing a controversial move to ban the United Arab List (Ra’am), an Arab-Israeli political party, from participating in the upcoming vote, with plans to designate the faction as a terrorist organization. Political analysts broadly view the proposed ban as a strategic maneuver to block opposition parties from forming a governing coalition: Arab-Israeli parties including Ra’am could hold the decisive swing seats that allow opposition blocs to build a majority, giving them outsized influence over who becomes Israel’s next prime minister.

A major controversy is roiling the inaugural SXSW London festival after the UK government barred two high-profile American progressive political commentators, Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker, from entering the country to speak at the event — and the festival’s muted response to the entry ban has sparked widespread outrage, multiple speaker withdrawals, and accusations of abandoning free speech principles.

Both Uygur and Piker were scheduled to deliver talks at SXSW London and had also been invited to speak at the prestigious Oxford Union. Uygur was set to lead a session titled *Techno-Feudalism is Here. Who Are the Lords?*, while Piker’s planned appearance centered on the topic How the American Left Learned to Speak the Internet. The UK Home Office rejected the pair’s Electronic Travel Authorisations, justifying the decision with the vague claim that their presence in the UK would not be “conducive to the public good”.

In a public post on X, Uygur framed the ban as a direct penalty for criticism of Israel. He noted that British officials labeled his factual observation that Israel influences U.S. policy through campaign donations to a large majority of Congress as antisemitic. “I didn’t get banned for criticizing the UK, but for criticizing Israel,” Uygur wrote. “They broke the irony record by saying it was because I said Israel might control other governments. I wonder if they’re going to ban themselves.”

The Oxford Union, the other host of the two commentators’ planned events, immediately pushed back against the Home Office’s ruling, publicly condemning the entry ban and arranging a virtual livestream for Uygur and Piker to speak despite the travel restriction. SXSW London, by contrast, took a far more hands-off stance in its official statement released Monday: “Decisions on entry to the U.K. are a matter for the Home Office and the individuals concerned. SXSW London’s role is to convene a broad range of diverse voices and perspectives.”

That neutral, hands-off response triggered immediate fury from Piker and other scheduled participants. On X, Piker excoriated the festival, writing, “sxsw was a minor part of my trip to the uk, they totally didn’t defend me or cenk at all, they’re actual fucking losers and i will never work with them for the rest of my life. if you bought a ticket expecting to see me you should demand a refund.” During a Monday evening livestream, he doubled down on the criticism, contrasting SXSW’s inaction with the Oxford Union’s pushback: “Oxford Union at least had the integrity to be like, this is fucking bullshit, what is the British government doing? South by Southwest was like, lol peace!”

Multiple scheduled speakers have since pulled out of the festival in protest. Ash Sarkar, a journalist and contributing editor at UK progressive outlet Novara Media, publicly shared the email she sent to SXSW announcing her withdrawal, arguing that any event organizer that had accepted the Home Office interference without pushback failed to meet the basic standard of integrity in defending free expression against government overreach.

Zara Rahim, a political advisor who was set to join Piker on his scheduled panel, also pulled out and called out the festival’s contradictory stance. Rahim noted that the panel’s core goal was to examine why the public distrusts political institutions, gatekeepers, and existing power structures that dictate which voices are considered legitimate in public discourse. She highlighted the sharp irony: SXSW was supposed to host a conference exploring the future of media, democracy, dissent, and political power, yet responded with extreme caution when one of its scheduled speakers was barred from the country entirely.

This is not the first time SXSW has found itself at the center of high-profile controversy. In 2024, more than 80 artists withdrew from SXSW’s flagship U.S. event to protest the festival’s partnerships with the U.S. military and defense contractor RTX Corporation. Under pressure, SXSW ultimately reversed its decision, announcing that it would cut ties with military and weapons manufacturing sponsors for its 2025 event. The 2024 SXSW London event also faced widespread criticism and speaker withdrawals after it was revealed that former British prime ministers Tony Blair and David Cameron would make unannounced speaking appearances. Critics objected to the pair’s foreign policy records in the Middle East, particularly Cameron’s role as foreign secretary when the UK government backed Israel’s military campaign in Gaza.

The entry ban itself has drawn condemnation from across UK political circles, with senior politicians framing it as an unacceptable attack on free speech and a deliberate crackdown on criticism of Israel. Green Party leader Zack Polanski accused the current Labour government of going to great lengths to silence opposition to the Israeli government, while former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called the ban both an attack on the right to criticize Israel and an indictment of the UK government’s own “complicity in genocide” in Gaza.

For nearly 200 years, the Oxford Union has stood as one of the world’s most iconic platforms for provocative and unfiltered debate, with former British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan once hailing it as “the last bastion of free speech in the western world.” Today, that famous line is emblazoned outside the society’s campus bar, a constant reminder of the core principle the institution was built to defend – and this term, its president Arwa Elrayess is putting that principle to the test in a high-profile standoff with the British government.

Elrayess, a Palestinian student, has issued a firm vow to push forward with a planned speaking event featuring American political commentators Cenk Uygur and Hasan Piker, after UK authorities barred the two men from entering the country. Originally scheduled to appear in person at the union and at London’s SXSW festival, the pair will now address Oxford students via livestream on Saturday 6 June, with the society refusing to scrap the event entirely.

The clash began when UK Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood revoked Uygur’s electronic travel authorisation, ruling that his presence in the United Kingdom would not be “conducive to the public good.” Uygur, for his part, says the ban stems from his public criticism of Israel. In a post on X, he explained that the UK government labeled his widely shared claim that Israel influences the U.S. Congress via campaign donations as antisemitic, even as it acknowledged his statement was factually grounded. “Don’t know if facts will soon be banned in Britain,” he wrote. “I didn’t get banned for criticizing the UK, but for criticizing Israel. They broke the irony record by saying it was because I said Israel might control other governments. I wonder if they’re going to ban themselves.”

Piker, who spoke at the Oxford Union last year, noted his 2024 address focused on “the dangers of conflating Judaism and Zionism & how this foments antisemitism.”

In an exclusive interview with Middle East Eye published Monday, Elrayess issued a sharp rebuke of the government’s decision, doubling down on the union’s commitment to holding the event. “The Oxford Union was founded on one principle: that ideas are challenged through debate, not silenced by decree,” she said. “We have never turned a speaker away because of their political beliefs nor have we sought a permission slip from the state. We will not start now.” Reaffirming that the event would not be canceled, she added, “Free speech does not require a visa.”

Elrayess, who has personal experience with the censorship of pro-Palestinian speech, framed the standoff as a defense of the institution’s 201-year legacy. Founded in 1823 by students rebelling against official campus censorship, the Oxford Union has a long history of defending controversial speech that draws political backlash. In 1933, the union passed an anti-war motion that earned a blistering condemnation from Winston Churchill, who called the body “abject, squalid, shameless” and “nauseating.” In 1964, civil rights leader Malcolm X delivered a legendary address defending the principle that “extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” More recently, the union made headlines when O.J. Simpson spoke just after his acquittal on murder charges, and the UK government blocked broadcasts of a speech by Sinn Fein politician Gerry Adams. Just this year, the society drew widespread condemnation from right-wing British media after its members voted overwhelmingly to declare Israel “an apartheid state responsible for genocide.” It also faced criticism earlier this year for extending an invitation to far-right activist Tommy Robinson for an Islam-related debate, a decision that tested the society’s commitment to hearing opposing views.

The government’s entry ban has already drawn sharp criticism from across the British political left. Green Party leader Zack Polanski has accused the new Labour government of “doing everything possible to silence criticism of the Israeli government.” Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn echoed that criticism, denouncing the ban as “an attack on the freedom to criticise Israel, as well as the UK government’s own complicity in genocide.”

For Elrayess and the Oxford Union, the livestream event this weekend will be a tangible demonstration of whether Macmillan’s decades-old description of the society as a bastion of free speech still holds true today.

A sharp diplomatic rift between former U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been exposed by multiple U.S. officials, who have detailed a profanity-filled phone call where Trump lashed out at Netanyahu over Israel’s planned new offensive on Beirut, Lebanon. The confrontation came on the heels of Iran’s decision to pause ongoing indirect peace talks mediated by international actors, a move Tehran made directly in response to Netanyahu’s public announcement of plans to renew strikes on the southern Beirut suburb of Dahieh, a stronghold of the Lebanese militant group Hezbollah.

Citing two anonymous senior U.S. administration officials, news outlet Axios first reported that Trump unleashed a torrent of harsh criticism against Netanyahu during the conversation, steamrolling the Israeli leader and warning that any further military escalation in Lebanon would push Israel into complete international isolation. According to the officials’ accounts, Trump went so far as to call Netanyahu “fucking crazy” and bluntly stated that “everybody hates Israel” over the planned offensive. He repeatedly emphasized that his interventions were shielding Israel from global backlash, telling Netanyahu “I’m saving your ass. Everybody hates you now. Everybody hates Israel because of this.” At one point in the heated exchange, sources say Trump yelled the question “What the fuck are you doing?” in frustration at Netanyahu’s refusal to back down from the attack plans.

The officials added that Trump also publicly accused Netanyahu of ingratitude, a remark widely interpreted as a reference to Netanyahu’s ongoing ongoing corruption trial in Israel and Trump’s previous public calls for the Israeli leader to receive a full pardon. Immediately after the call, Trump moved quickly to de-escalate the situation, posting an announcement on his social media platform clarifying that no U.S. troops would be deployed to Beirut, and any U.S. military assets already en route had already been ordered to turn back. He also claimed he had held a productive discussion with Hezbollah representatives to work out the terms of a full ceasefire, writing “They agreed that all shooting will stop – That Israel will not attack them, and they will not attack Israel.”

Initial responses to the ceasefire proposal from regional stakeholders have revealed mixed positions. Hassan Fadlallah, a Hezbollah member of the Lebanese parliament, released a public statement Monday confirming the group supports a comprehensive ceasefire across all of Lebanese territory, noting that such an agreement should be followed by a full withdrawal of Israeli military forces from all occupied Lebanese territory. Fadlallah also made clear that Hezbollah rejects any partial truce deal that would spare Beirut from Israeli strikes in exchange for Hezbollah halting attacks on northern Israel. Shortly after Fadlallah’s statement, the Lebanese presidency officially confirmed that Hezbollah had agreed to the U.S.-brokered proposal for a mutual halt to all hostilities across the entire country.

Netanyahu, however, has refused to back down from his original stance. In a post on the social platform X, the Israeli prime minister confirmed he had spoken with Trump, and reiterated that “if Hezbollah does not cease attacking our cities and citizens – Israel will attack terror targets in Beirut. This stance of ours remains unchanged.”

Regarding Iran’s decision to suspend indirect peace talks, Trump initially offered a dismissive response, telling reporters “I don’t care if they’re over, honestly…I really don’t care. I couldn’t care less.” Later, speaking to NBC News, Trump added that he had not received any direct communication from Iran since the suspension, and suggested that a period of diplomatic silence could be beneficial. “I think we’ve been talking too much if you want to know the truth. I think going silent would be very good, and that could be for a long time,” he said, adding “It doesn’t mean we’re going to go and start dropping bombs all over there. We’ll just go silent. We’ll keep the blockade. Blockade is a piece of steel.” He subsequently walked back the suggestion that talks were permanently halted, posting on social media that negotiations with Iran were continuing “at a rapid pace.”
This report was originally published by Middle East Eye, an outlet that provides independent, in-depth coverage of the Middle East and North Africa region.

A controversial Israeli bill that would codify restrictions on the Islamic call to prayer, known as the adhan, has cleared a critical legislative hurdle, drawing sharp condemnation from senior Muslim religious leaders and Palestinian communities who frame the measure as an attack on their religious identity and a violation of international law.

On Sunday, the Ministerial Committee for Legislation — the body that vets whether proposed bills move forward for a preliminary vote in Israel’s parliament, the Knesset — advanced the legislation. The bill was submitted by far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Zvika Fogel, chair of the Knesset’s National Security Committee, and while it has secured committee backing, it still requires approval from the full Knesset, with no vote date scheduled as of yet.

Under the terms of the proposed law, the installation and operation of loudspeakers for religious calls to prayer would be banned by default, with permits granted only at the discretion of Israeli authorities. Approval would hinge on a set of criteria including volume limits, required noise reduction infrastructure, a mosque’s geographic location, proximity to residential neighborhoods, and the perceived impact on local residents. If permit conditions are violated, police would gain the authority to immediately order loudspeakers shut off, with repeated violations leading to equipment confiscation and steep financial penalties: unpermitted loudspeaker use would carry a fine of 50,000 Israeli shekels (approximately $17,719), while violations of permit terms would incur a 10,000 shekel fine (around $3,545).

Sheikh Ekrima Sabri, the imam of Jerusalem’s Al-Aqsa Mosque — one of the holiest sites in Islam and a flashpoint of longstanding Israeli-Palestinian tension — labeled the latest legislative push a dangerous escalation of repeated, previously unsuccessful efforts to curtail the adhan. “The current attempt to ban the Muslim call to prayer has taken a dangerous turn by legalising the banning of the call to prayer through issuing a law to prohibit it,” Sabri stated on Monday. He emphasized that Israeli authorities have no legitimate standing to classify the centuries-old religious practice as unwanted noise or a public nuisance, arguing “The disturbance and noise come from the war machines of the aggressors.”

The bill’s backers have defended the proposal as a necessary public health and quality of life measure. Ben Gvir has claimed that excessive noise from muezzins (the religious figures who recite the adhan) harms the well-being of Israeli residents, saying, “In many places, the noise of the muezzin is unreasonable and harms the quality of life and health of residents. This is a phenomenon that cannot be tolerated.”

Palestinian citizens of Israel, who would bear the direct brunt of the new regulations, have widely condemned the proposal, rejecting the claim that the adhan constitutes a noise problem. They argue the legislation is just the latest example of the current Israeli government’s systematic efforts to erode Palestinian religious and cultural identity across territories under Israeli control.

A key unresolved question remains: whether the new rules would apply to Al-Aqsa Mosque, located in occupied East Jerusalem. Israel formally annexed East Jerusalem in 1980, a move that has never been recognized by the international community. Consistent with international law, most of the global community regards East Jerusalem as occupied Palestinian territory, holding that an occupying power cannot claim sovereignty over the area and is barred from implementing permanent legal or structural changes to the occupied territory. Sabri emphasized this principle, noting that as an occupying power, Israel “has no right to alter the existing status quo of the occupied territory” and “has no right to enact laws that contradict the laws that were in effect in the country before its occupation.”

Efforts to restrict the adhan in Israel are not a new development. In 2017, a nearly identical bill targeting loudspeaker use for the Islamic call to prayer passed a preliminary Knesset reading but was never enacted into law. Most recently, at the end of 2024, Ben Gvir already issued a directive ordering Israeli police to block mosques from broadcasting the adhan, repeating his claim that the practice disturbs Jewish residents.