David Cameron has proposed that the UK consider sanctions against two Israeli ministers, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, to promote compliance with international law. Cameron characterized the ministers as extremists and believed sanctions would send a strong message to Israeli leadership. Internal discussions about these sanctions were ultimately halted due to political sensitivities during the election, as well as pushback from the United States. Current UK foreign policy seeks to balance support for Israel with humanitarian concerns and legal obligations regarding the ongoing conflict in the region.
David Cameron has called upon the United Kingdom to contemplate imposing sanctions on two Israeli ministers as a means of encouraging adherence to international law. During an appearance on the BBC’s “Today” program, the former Conservative foreign secretary revealed that he had been developing plans to sanction Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir prior to the recent election. Cameron characterized both officials as “extremist” figures and indicated that such sanctions would convey to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu the message that their actions were unacceptable and must cease. The BBC reached out to both Smotrich and Ben-Gvir for their comments on the proposed sanctions. Lord Cameron pointed out that the two ministers have previously made statements encouraging the obstruction of aid convoys to Gaza and fostering extremist settler behavior in the West Bank. Notably, earlier this year, Smotrich made controversial remarks suggesting that it might be “justified and moral” to starve Gazans and advocated for the removal of Palestinian residents to make space for Israelis. When questioned about why the sanctions had not been executed, Lord Cameron explained that he received advice indicating that such actions would be perceived as excessively political during the electoral period. Current Foreign Secretary David Lammy condemned the rhetoric of both Ben-Gvir and Smotrich as “entirely unacceptable,” expressing concerns regarding escalatory behaviors and rising tensions in the region. Internal sources within Whitehall confirmed that Cameron’s plans for instituting a travel ban and asset freeze on the ministers were substantially developed but were ultimately shelved to avoid exacerbating political discord amidst the election campaigning. Additionally, it was reported that the United States opposed the sanctions against Smotrich and Ben-Gvir during that time, as the UK typically coordinates its sanctions policies with the U.S. and the European Union to enhance their effectiveness. The Foreign Office, while not commenting on future sanctions decisions, suggested that any prospects for sanctioning the ministers might be postponed until after the U.S. elections. The perceived lack of UK leverage over Israel could also mean that domestic political considerations may take precedence in any decisions regarding sanctions. Labour’s recent initiatives have included imposing restrictions on UK arms sales to Israel, refunding the UN agency aiding Palestinians, and rescinding opposition to the International Criminal Court’s right to seek an arrest warrant for Netanyahu. Further sanctions against the Israeli government may risk being viewed as excessive. Some sources indicated that the imposition of UK sanctions might inadvertently confer a sense of legitimacy upon the two ministers. Tom Keatinge from the Royal United Services Institute commented that targeting Ben-Gvir and Smotrich with sanctions would represent a significant political statement aimed at Israel. He also noted that there was no prior instance of the UK government sanctioning elements of an allied nation and emphasized the extensive work required to formalize such sanctions, citing that the Foreign Office’s sanctions director was already overwhelmed due to other international issues, including those surrounding Russia. Lord Cameron argued for action that would influence Israel through sanctions against certain ministers rather than taking the “wrong path” of suspending arms exports. He acknowledged the principle of supporting Israel’s right to defend itself against threats from Hamas and Hezbollah while underlining that this support is not unconditional. Cameron stated: “It is not a blank cheque, it is not unconditional,” asserting the necessity of ensuring humanitarian aid reaches Gaza and respect for the UN’s role in Lebanon.
The discussion around potential sanctions against Israeli leaders arises amid heightened scrutiny of Israel’s actions in Palestine, particularly regarding the humanitarian situation in Gaza and West Bank settlement policies. Recent remarks by Israeli ministers have prompted concerns in the UK and international communities about the escalation of tensions and the potential violation of international law. In this context, David Cameron’s comments serve to reflect the ongoing debate within the UK regarding its foreign policy posture towards Israel and Palestine, considering both humanitarian issues and diplomatic relations.
In summary, David Cameron’s proposal to sanction two Israeli ministers highlights the tension between the UK’s political alignments and its commitment to international law. The stance taken by the UK government regarding these ministers, along with broader issues of arms sales and humanitarian aid, reflects the intricate balance of supporting an ally while addressing critical human rights and legal considerations. The conversation around sanctions underscores the complexities and potential ramifications of foreign policy decisions in a polarized geopolitical landscape.
Original Source: www.bbc.com
