The United Kingdom has announced economic sanctions against Israeli settlements in the West Bank, a move that observers say marks a return to an ethical dimension in British foreign policy. The decision, unveiled by Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband on Tuesday, includes the formation of a 12-nation coalition to support the measures, signaling a shift in how Britain conducts international diplomacy in the post-Trump era.
Miliband's announcement and coalition building
In his speech, Miliband described the situation in the West Bank as "ethnic cleansing" carried out by "settler terrorists," language long sought by Palestinians. He also formally recognized the occupation of the West Bank as "unlawful," a position that aligns with international legal interpretations but has rarely been stated so directly by a British foreign secretary.
Britain is not acting alone. Alongside the UK, the coalition includes France and Canada, among others. The European Union, hampered by allies of former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, could not have taken similar action. The United States, regardless of President Donald Trump's stance, would have made a G7-backed approach impossible, according to the analysis.
Potential impact on Israeli banks and citizens
The sanctions could have profound consequences for Israel, particularly the proposal to target individuals and entities that "finance illegal settlements." This could potentially include every Israeli bank, forcing them to choose between doing business with settlements or maintaining financial ties with the UK. Israeli citizens may also face a dilemma: whether their credit cards will work in settlements or when traveling to London.
Ahead of elections scheduled for the end of next month, there is growing awareness in Israel of its dwindling number of western allies. Support from the United States is also waning, with polls indicating that more Americans now sympathize with Palestinians than with Israelis, and over half back the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Changing US political landscape
Even centrist Democrats are suggesting a potential shift in US policy. Following Miliband's announcement, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for a "crackdown on settler violence" and said the US should take a "very tough position" if Netanyahu is re-elected.
The past few days have demonstrated that Britain's government recognizes the world has changed since Trump's re-election. For decades, the US has been Britain's most important diplomatic partner, but Whitehall is now adjusting to the reality that Washington is no longer the first call for diplomatic solutions.
New era of ad hoc diplomatic groups
The Foreign Office's ability to assemble and lead a strong coalition is seen as promising. This time, phone calls to Washington came at the end of the process, after the policy had been agreed. Prime Minister Andy Burnham briefed Trump, while Miliband discussed details with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Alongside the E3 group of Britain, France, and Germany, which has taken the lead on forming a rival western policy on Ukraine, the world is moving into a new era of ad hoc diplomatic groups that may prove as effective as their formal predecessors, such as the G7 and NATO.
Traditional alliances are fracturing, undermined by a US president opposed to multilateralism, liberal democracy, and the rule of law. During Trump's first year in office, the "rest of the west" was inert, with some leaders refusing to believe the US was no longer an ally, while others understood the challenge but lacked a strategy. Since the start of 2026, the debate has concluded, following Trump's incendiary national security strategy and his desire to annex Greenland, threatening a NATO ally. As Mark Carney stated in Davos, there has been a "rupture" in the international rules-based order, making it vital for middle powers to unite.
Challenges ahead: aid, Ukraine, and Sudan
The big question for Burnham and Miliband is whether they can build on this start and turn Britain into a progressive international force. Three key issues will be indicative. The easiest, but most expensive, is aid. Both have expressed a desire to reverse Keir Starmer's 40% cut to the international aid and development budget, a decision described as both immoral and self-defeating. If reversed, the UK could regain soft power it previously discarded.
A larger challenge lies in Ukraine, where the E3-led "coalition of the willing" has had little impact on Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin. While Trump appears unwilling to spend political capital on saving Netanyahu, he seems more disposed to aid his counterpart in Moscow.
Another conflict Miliband should strive to end is the long-running war in Sudan. This would involve standing up to a close ally in the Middle East, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which has been funding and arming the Rapid Support Forces, a militia group controlling large parts of the country and accused by a UN report of committing atrocities bearing the "hallmarks of genocide."
The bravery shown on Israel has been missing on Sudan, where the UK has failed to criticize the UAE, merely urging unnamed "external actors" to stop "supplying, funding and fuelling the war." Another coalition, the E4+, including France, Germany, and Norway, exists but must move beyond statements of "deep concern" to effect change.
Future of alliances and ethical foreign policy
These ad hoc alliances may not last. By next spring, Emmanuel Macron will no longer be in the Élysée palace, possibly replaced by a far-right president. Friedrich Merz is fighting for political survival in Germany, where the biggest threat is a far-right party aligned with Trump. It is vital that Miliband makes use of these alliances while he can.
Placing values at the heart of foreign policy carries political risk. Within days of Robin Cook's speech in May 1997, it emerged that the UK planned to sell more Hawk jets to an Indonesian regime attacking its own civilians in East Timor. "Ethical foreign policy" became a joke rather than a doctrine. However, Cook did not actually use that phrase; he said the UK's foreign policy "must have an ethical dimension," showing an understanding that human rights cannot always trump realpolitik.
During his four years in office, Cook's ethical dimension was seen in the banning of landmines, an annual human rights report, and Nato-led military action to stop ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Miliband, too, is no wide-eyed idealist. Some wanted him to go further, such as declaring a genocide in Gaza. He has also concluded that, despite Trump's danger, the UK must be careful about how and when it stands up to him.
The past few days have shown that foreign policy with an ethical dimension is not only possible but can make a difference. Many people around the world, from Gaza to Darfur, will hope it continues.
