The saga of the closure of the British Consulate in Jerusalem reached its end last week, at least temporarily, with both governments able to claim victory.
Israel can boast that, as per its instruction a month ago, there is no longer a British consulate in its capital city, and most of Britain’s diplomats have departed. On the other hand, the British government has stated that the building will not be closing. It will be known as the “UK Mission, Jerusalem,” and will continue its work with the Palestinian people.
Israel’s decision to close the consulate followed a British decision to impose a ban on imports from the settlements. There had previously been certain restrictions, but this time, His Majesty’s government took a significant step further.
There is no doubt that the British move was driven in part by political pressure from Labour supporters, and that such pressure is not unrelated to what is happening in the West Bank and Gaza. Israel’s retaliatory measure is also political.
All this is natural and understandable. But what, exactly, was all the fuss about?
The principle of the matter: Issues with Israeli settlements in the West Bank
For the purposes of this discussion, it is irrelevant that exports from the settlements account for roughly 1% of Israeli exports; it is the principle that matters. There is broad international agreement that the territories are not part of Israel. This is not news to Israel and its officials.
In fact, over the years, successive Israeli governments have signed agreements that excluded the territories from various benefits. That is why Ariel University cannot participate in European Union research programs, and why a bottle of wine exported from Gush Etzion cannot be labeled “Made in Israel.” If Israel chose to compensate Israelis in the territories for their losses, that was a domestic decision.
Israel is not merely aware of the aforementioned international position and, to some extent, cooperates with it; as a general rule, it acts accordingly. From Israel’s perspective, there are two exceptions – east Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, which it has annexed.
As for the rest, despite deepening Israeli civilian presence in the West Bank, the territories’ formal status remains as it was on June 11, 1967, the day after the Six Day War: occupied territory, which is subject to international law.
INTERNATIONAL LAW stipulates that territory cannot be acquired through conquest, and that occupation is, by definition, temporary. It sets out what an occupying power may and may not do, including restrictions on transferring its population into occupied territory, and vice versa.
It also defines the occupier’s obligations toward the local population, like protecting their security and property. With limited exceptions, such as the taxes paid by Israelis who live there, the law applied in the territories is military law.
Until now, Britain and other countries have, at least in part, turned a blind eye to the contradiction between the reality on the ground and international law, which Israel ostensibly claims to follow. This appears to be changing. So, what is Israel to do?
Israel can continue along its current path and ignore moves like the recent British step, which will likely not be the last or the harshest. But there is another option, which takes us back to the diplomatic compromise and what preceded it.
Before it was reached, there were hints that Britain could retaliate by expelling 27 Israeli diplomats from London, matching the number of British diplomats who were told to pack their bags.
The fact that such a possibility was raised over a political disagreement is inconceivable. Diplomats are generally expelled over suspicions of espionage, and Israeli ambassadors have been expelled in the aftermath of wars. The thought of so many Israeli representatives being told to leave Israel’s second-largest export market (after the United States), to depart the country which is home to the Diaspora’s fourth-largest Jewish community, is hard to contain.
Israel can choose to continue to ignore every criticism or regard it as antisemitic. But it also has the option to view the British move as a warning: a signal of what may happen in its relations with other countries if it continues to treat the territories – and their inhabitants – as though it is free to do whatever it pleases, as though no constraints apply to it.
The writer was Israel’s first ambassador to the Baltic states after the disintegration of the Soviet Union, ambassador to South Africa, and the congressional liaison officer at the Israeli embassy in Washington. She is a graduate of Israel’s National Defense College.