SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
israeli settlements
The Impossible Will Take a Little While: Hope Beyond Hope
In an excerpt from an update of his book, Paul Rogat Loeb write of the importance of being willing to act whether or not we ever see the results. By letting go of the need for immediate victories, we can persist no matter how hard it gets.
Oct 11, 2026
This is an excerpt from The Impossible Will Take a Little While: Perseverance and Hope in Troubled Times, whose wholly updated edition has just been released.
Sometimes we achieve the impossible sooner than we expect. Knowing that can stiffen our resolve. But relying on quick victories can also tempt us to place too much emphasis on outcomes; it can cause us to become unduly impatient, brittle, with our will easily broken by defeats. A deeper, more farseeing hope, by contrast, combines realism with resilience, acknowledging setbacks and despair without giving in to them.
The answer may lie in what we could call “hope beyond hope.” It comes from being willing to act whether or not we ever see the results. By letting go of the need for immediate victories, we can persist no matter how hard it gets. Certainly, these victories matter immensely; if we’re facing an important election, for instance, we need to do everything possible to ensure that more humane values prevail, even if the candidates are less than ideal. Lives, and the continuation of democracy, can depend on the outcome. But we still don’t control the results.
The only way to discover what’s achievable is by taking action, trying new approaches, expanding the bounds of the possible.
Whatever we take on, our chances are better if we’re intentional. That means thinking about how we’ll best convey our story, approach crucial allies, expand our reach, and pressure the people or institutions we’re targeting. But since we won’t always win, we need ways to continue regardless of short-term outcomes. The more we accept that we can’t always dictate the results of our actions, the more we free ourselves to keep doing the necessary work.
Ian Bassin, who co-founded the cross-partisan coalition Protect Democracy, explores this paradox in “The Hard-Won Hope of the Long Defeat.” Using a phrase from The Lord of the Rings, Bassin takes lessons from the US Civil Rights movement and from Polish democracy activists who found ways to persist after the Communist dictatorship crushed the Solidarity movement that had embodied their hopes. Bassin explores the kinds of approaches that allow groups and individuals to continue to act even when progress is elusive, or has been reversed.
In “Staying the Course,” Mary-Wynne Ashford echoes Bassin’s perspectives: If we let go of immediate expectations, yet refuse to quit when our plight seems bleakest, she says, we can maintain our own sense of meaning and purpose—and also a deeper and more grounded hope. Ashford, former president of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, begins by exploring her own temptation to despair. She compares the experience of working for change to that of Sisyphus as he endlessly rolls his rock up the hill, but with one crucial difference: Sisyphus acted alone. “We sustain each other in dark times,” Ashford writes, “sometimes simply by being present together... Whether or not we succeed in pushing the rock up the hill, there is meaning in the journey, not in the hope that one time we’ll be able to shed the rock forever and live in a perfect world.” We can’t predict the future, she says, but for all our doubt and hesitation, we can choose how to live and what to fight for. She therefore urges us to join with others in the pursuit of what may seem impossible, drawing strength from community, as Sisyphus, acting alone, could not.
Taking action together is essential if we’re going to keep on, both to exercise power and for the community that sustains us. We’ve explored this theme before: Nelson Mandela and his fellow prisoners passing news from cell to cell on toilet paper, Norwegian teachers standing strong, John Lewis’ image of children holding hands in a storm, the mothers of the Plaza de Mayo communing in silent witness, people coming out of their homes to challenge masked ICE agents.
There’s no more important lesson if we’re going to learn to persist: Isolation, whether physical or psychological, starves the human spirit; connection feeds and heals it. In her book Small Wonder, Barbara Kingsolver draws on this sense of connection to resist those “who say it’s ridiculous to imagine that the world could be made better than it is. When I come down to this feeling that I am an army of one standing out on the broad plain waving my little flag of hope, I call up a friend or two and offer to make dinner for us. We remind ourselves that we aren’t standing apart from the crowd, we are a crowd. We’re a prairie fire, a church choir, a major note in the American chord... We’re the theater of the street, the accurate joy of children’s hearts, the literature of tomorrow’s wisdom arrived today, just in time... In the long run, the choice of life over death is too good to resist.”
Embracing life also means opening ourselves up to grief. Though we heal best through community, we’re taught to keep our pain to ourselves, especially when it’s the product of powerful political or economic interests. Yet sharing outrage and grief is a critical part of keeping going. In “The Elm Dance,” Buddhist activist Joanna Macy describes the post-Soviet city of Novozybkov. A decade after the nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl, residents were riddled with cancers and birth defects. The superintendent of schools carried a Geiger counter in his car so he could tell children where not to play on a given day. Surrounding forests remain so radioactive that generations to come will never be able to walk safely among the trees.
Yet those affected found they could begin to recover from their losses by grieving together publicly, talking about the spring day when white ash fell from a clear sky. A mother asked what good her tears were if they couldn’t protect her daughters. “It feels like my heart is breaking open,” she said. “Maybe it will keep breaking again and again every day, I don’t know.” The simple act of telling what happened made her feel more connected to others. Through public mourning, she found another kind of community.
But what if we’re torn away from our communities? Under Stalin, prisoners were deliberately isolated in Siberia. Putin continues this tradition. Nadezhda Mandelstam recalls struggling to avoid drowning in despair when she and her husband, the poet Osip Mandelstam, were deported to a Stalinist labor camp. They didn’t know whether they’d ever be released, but Nadezhda refused to resign herself to the fate the dictatorship had assigned to her. Silence, she concluded, “is the real crime against humanity.”
Most of us will never experience conditions remotely as bleak and unforgiving as those endured by the Mandelstams or Alexei Navalny, even as the United States has been sending deportees to nearly equally brutal prisons in El Salvador, Eswatini, Rwanda, and South Sudan. But we still wrestle with powerlessness, particularly when so much is being attacked or destroyed. When this overwhelms us, it’s tempting simply to give up, or to rage at the world, convinced that no matter what we do, nothing will change. One way out of this dilemma is to identify modest actions we can undertake together with others, since we never know where they’ll lead.
History, in short, remains contingent. Nothing is guaranteed. Anything can happen.
While doomscrolling news stories, for example, I’ll often feel helpless before vast political forces. I’ll read about another assault on human dignity or abuse of power and clench my gut in rage. Then I’ll stop, take a breath, and think of some small way to act—a vigil I can join, a phone call I can make, some person or community I can fruitfully approach. Whether or not my efforts achieve their immediate goals, concentrating on these doable tasks helps me shift gears and put whatever strengths I can contribute in service of what I believe. At least, as Howard Zinn would say, I’m back in the game.
The “Tesla Takedown” boycott is an example of small actions mattering at a point when many felt helpless. Elon Musk played a huge role in electing Donald Trump for his second term, giving his campaign $290 million and promoting him endlessly on Twitter/X. In return, Trump made Musk the head of what they called DOGE (the so-called Department of Government Efficiency), which gutted critical federal programs in healthcare, scientific research, the environment, veterans’ services, education, and consumer protection and wholly eliminated the US Agency for International Development (USAID). DOGE also accessed citizens’ private governmental data, including Social Security records. The scale and speed of the cuts was likely intentional—Trump adviser Steve Bannon talked of “flooding the zone” to leave potential challengers dislocated and demoralized. And initially it had that result.
People began to protest in various ways, but aside from court challenges were scrambling to respond to the DOGE cuts and everything else the administration was doing. Then, in February 2025, three days after the first modest national days of protest, Boston University media studies professor Joan Donovan posted on Bluesky: “If Musk thinks he can speed run through DC downloading personal data, we can certainly bang some pots and pans on the sidewalks in front of Tesla dealerships. Bring your friends and make a little noise.” Donovan linked to a list of Tesla locations.
The post drew only 175 likes in the first four months. But actor and activist Alex Winter, who played Bill in Bill & Ted’s Excellent Adventure, reposted to his much larger list and created a website to promote a boycott campaign. Larger groups, including local Indivisible affiliates, spread the idea or took it up as a project. People began protesting in front of Tesla dealerships in hundreds of cities, chanting, carrying signs, wearing the soon-ubiquitous inflatable animal costumes, and presenting the clear message that buying a new Tesla meant supporting all that Trump and Musk were doing. Current Tesla owners joined as well, displaying bumper stickers or magnets saying things like “I Bought This Before Elon Went Crazy” or “Anti-Elon Tesla Club.” The protests engaged people who’d never participated before, renewed the spirits of others, and spread globally.
Through the first three quarters of 2025, the campaign helped decrease Tesla’s net income by 61% from the year before, drove its share of the US electric vehicle market to an eight-year low, and decreased European Tesla sales nearly 40%. As the pressure built, Musk said he was withdrawing from politics (although his donations still dwarf those of all but a few individuals). The ripples of Tesla Takedown seem a high-tech version of my friend Lisa and her handful of friends standing pathetic and bedraggled in the rain, and accidentally inspiring the political involvement of famed baby doctor Benjamin Spock.
When hope does seem elusive, it helps to cultivate what we might call radical stubbornness. As Jane Goodall reflected in The Book of Hope: “Sometimes I think, ‘Well, why on Earth do I feel hopeful?’ Because the problems facing the planet are huge. And if I analyze them carefully, they do sometimes seem absolutely impossible to solve. So why do I feel hopeful? Partly, because I’m obstinate. I just won’t give in. But it’s partly also because we cannot accurately predict what the future might bring... No one can know how it will all turn out.”
I remember one of the weeks when nothing was going right for my student voting project that I’ve mentioned. Anticipated donations fell through. Sympathetic contacts at major foundations unexpectedly left. Health issues hit key staffers. At one point, dealing with yet another personnel crisis and a looming shortage of funds, I was close to tears. But then I thought about the importance of what we were doing. I went out for a run. And then I got back on the phone the next day. Our community of existing supporters began to come through. The following week, we got the largest contribution in the history of the project and were able to hire some amazing new organizers.
In struggles for justice, neither victory nor failure is certain. As K. C. Golden writes in “The Inevitability Trap,” what we often call preordained becomes so only through our resignation. So the only way to discover what’s achievable is by taking action, trying new approaches, expanding the bounds of the possible. Climate Solutions, where Golden was policy director, mixes environmental advocacy with climate-change consulting for Pacific Northwest corporations, small businesses, and local governments. The sponsors of the group’s annual breakfast recently included Boeing and Alaska Airlines, with which Climate Solutions has been working to develop algae-based and other sustainable biofuels—a partnership that would have been nearly unimaginable a short while ago.
Will efforts like these and those Bill McKibben describes be enough to continue shifting the dynamics of this immensely challenging issue? In “Is There Hope on Climate Change?” David Roberts, of the Volts podcast, considers this question in light of the fact that we remain in a race to deploy the more sustainable alternatives despite the progress we’ve made. Echoing Howard Zinn, Roberts takes heart from community, from the intrinsic value of acting, and from the very uncertainty of prediction. Hope isn’t “about the future,” Roberts argues, “as much as it is about the present.” In other words, it’s the choices we make here and now that have the potential to alter a common future. “We don’t know when history might unlock the door,” Roberts concludes, “so we have no choice but to keep pushing on it.”
History, in short, remains contingent. Nothing is guaranteed. Anything can happen. As Barbara Ehrenreich observed, we’re given “no operating manual, no step-by-step instructions.” But what if we assume that our own seemingly small actions could, when joined with those of others, actually change history—and act on that assumption even when the odds seem impossible? That belief unites everyone in this book and is key to their powerful lives and words. It’s also why it’s so critical to refuse to accept the apparent limits of particular historical moments, particularly in hard times.
Wheatley suggests concentrating less on the measurable impact of what we do, and more on the value and appropriateness of our work and on the communities we build in the process.
As my longtime friend Atlanta activist and trainer Sonya Vetra Tinsley reminds us, in “You’ve Got to Pick Your Team”: “We’ll never know who’s really going to prevail.” So I just have to decide which team seems happier, which side I’d rather be on.” For herself, she’s chosen the team that keeps working for change over the team of manipulation, fear, and cynical resignation.
Ta-Nehisi Coates believes in the struggle for justice, but cautions that “if you hope that in your lifetime things will be necessarily improved... you’re setting yourself up for false hope... If you hope that your struggle might in your children’s generation, your grandchildren’s generation, your descendants’ generation, actually lead to a better world... I think that’s a hope based on history and rooted in something very, very real."
Coates remembered being taken as a child to various political events in the African American community. Stressing the struggles and sacrifices of people before him, he said, “There was this whole tradition of saying libations where you poured water into a plant representing the earth and folks who had gone back to the earth. And you would say names, and those names could be anybody from Malcolm X to Toussaint L’Ouverture to your Aunt Grace to whoever it was who you felt had somehow sacrificed for you to be there.” However we believe things will turn out, that connectedness between past, present, and future can help keep us going.
Even in the bleakest situations, we still need to continue acting however we can, if just by standing up for our fellow humans. In “Next Year in Mas’Ha,” Starhawk wrestles with her own fury, bitterness, and despair after an Israeli soldier drove an armored bulldozer over one of her comrades, Rachel Corrie, and Israeli soldiers shot two others. Corrie was killed in the city of Rafah in Gaza while volunteering with the International Solidarity Movement, a nonviolent resistance effort uniting Palestinians and Jews. After the deaths, Starhawk felt in a mood to “smash something.”
Instead, she traveled to the threatened West Bank village of Mas’Ha, on an Israeli settlers’ bus “full of elderly women who could have been my aunts and old men who could have been my uncles,” eventually reaching a Palestinian town where ancient olive groves were about to be uprooted and buried to make way for one of Israel’s ever-advancing “security” walls. Surrounded by anguish, she experienced an unlikely moment of possibility during a Seder that brought together Palestinians and their young Israeli supporters. Watching “people who, faced with utter destruction of everything they need and hold dear, [open] their hearts to the children of the enemy and [ask] for help,” Starhawk felt the remote possibility of hope.
That hope has gotten far more elusive. Since Starhawk wrote her piece, Israeli settlers on the occupied West Bank have continued to destroy homes, cut down olive groves, attack farmers, and do everything they can to eliminate the possibility of a future for those who’ve lived there for generations. In October 2023, Hamas conducted a horrific and unconscionable attack on Israel, killing 1,210 people. Within two years, the Israeli military killed more than 70,000 people in Gaza, comparable to over 10 million deaths in a country the size of the United States. They also systematically destroyed Gaza’s cities and infrastructure, bombing and demolishing apartments, hospitals, schools, and water and sanitation systems. Starhawk grew up collecting pennies to plant trees in Israel. Now, she writes: “Forcing children to starve will not make Israelis safe. It will, in fact, destroy Israel.” She has continued working for peace nonetheless, and a world where we reach beyond our tribes.
Hope endures when we persist despite sorrows and defeats, even the darkest ones. The son of Mexican poet, journalist, and Catholic social justice activist Javier Sicilia was murdered by drug cartels. In response, Sicilia founded the Movement for Peace with Justice and Dignity, which organized silent marches and caravans across Mexico and the United States. The caravans demanded government reform and an end to a “war on drugs” strategy that Sicilia said only fed the cycles of violence. As Sicilia said in those marches, in a phrase adapted from the Greek poet Dinos Christianopoulos: “They buried us thinking we were corpses. They didn’t know we were seeds.”
So even after loss, persistence matters as much as ever. As Rebecca Solnit posted the evening of Trump’s 2024 election, “The fact that we cannot save everything does not mean we cannot save anything and everything we can save is worth saving.”
Sometimes we don’t know our impact until long after we take action. In 1969, Richard Nixon threatened to escalate the Vietnam War with nuclear strikes unless North Vietnam forced the National Liberation Front in the South to surrender. He had military advisers prepare detailed plans. But two weeks before his deadline, millions of Americans joined the nationwide “Moratorium” protests—the largest coordinated day of protest in the United States up to that point. When half a million people marched past the White House the following month, Nixon’s spokesperson announced that the president had watched the Washington Redskins football game instead, claiming the demonstrators hadn’t affected his policies in the slightest.
Nixon’s seeming indifference fed the frustration of far too many in the peace movement and accelerated the descent of a small number of people into violence that tainted the movement for decades to come. Yet, as Nixon’s memoirs revealed much later, he privately decided that the protests had so polarized public opinion that he would have to abandon his threat. Until the memoirs were published, Moratorium participants didn’t know that their demonstrations may have actually helped prevent a nuclear attack.
Similarly, “No Kings” protestors who challenged Trump could never know the precise effects of their protests. Donald Trump dismissed them to the point of posting an AI video of himself defecating from a plane on their marches. Yet their efforts built resistant community, gave courage to others, and impacted the culture in ways we may never precisely know.
Since we can’t predict the future or even always read the impact of our actions in the present, perhaps, as Margaret Wheatley suggests in “From Hope to Hopelessness,” we should let go of expectations altogether. “Anytime we hope for a certain outcome,” she writes, “and work hard to make it happen, then we also introduce fear—fear of failing, fear of loss.” Instead, Wheatley suggests concentrating less on the measurable impact of what we do, and more on the value and appropriateness of our work and on the communities we build in the process. It’s no accident that so many of those who’ve devoted their lives to creating a more humane world share this outlook, and continue doing the necessary work whatever their immediate successes or failures.
Excerpted from the wholly updated new edition of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: Perseverance and Hope in Troubled Times, by Paul Rogat Loeb (Basic Books, Oct 13, 2026), theimpossible.org. © Paul Loeb 2026.
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Lists of Companies Complicit in Its Crimes Grow, Will Israel Finally Pay a Price?
Reports, databases, and sanctions remain insufficient—and risk becoming meaningless—unless they are followed by sustained monitoring and practical action.
Oct 10, 2026
Let’s start with the good news. The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has added 61 companies to its database of businesses involved in activities linked to illegal Israeli settlements, expanding the list from 158 to 214 companies.
Why is this good news? Because it further illustrates a degree of seriousness within the international community to move its position on Israel from the realm of language to that of action.
Yet more good news: Five previously listed companies were removed after the office determined that their involvement in the relevant activities had ended.
For the Israeli mindset to change, the consequences of occupation, annexation, and genocide must become unmistakable.
This matters because it suggests that the mechanism can work: Sustained scrutiny can influence corporate behavior, and supporting Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine can carry a price.
Expectedly, the updated list has been welcomed by Palestinian and international human rights organizations, though, rightly so, they insist that such lists are not enough unless followed by direct government action and expanded to other facets of the Israeli military and economy.
But before focusing on what else needs to be done, we must acknowledge the significance of such reports, especially when placed within the larger context of global initiatives aimed at isolating Israel and its extremist leadership.
First, the 2026 update demonstrates continuing institutional commitment by the UN Human Rights Office. The database was not a one-off initiative issued under temporary political pressure. Its continued expansion and revision show that corporate involvement in Israel’s illegal settlement enterprise remains subject to international scrutiny.
Second, the addition of 61 companies reflects extensive research and follow-up by the UN, supported by information from Palestinian civil society and human rights organizations. The database is therefore not simply symbolic: It documents the international corporate networks that sustain and profit from Israel’s settlement project.
Third, the removal of five companies suggests that the mechanism can produce results. Its impact remains far below what Palestinians need, but the removals indicate that companies can end relevant activities and subsequently be removed from the database.
The list also provides civil society with credible material for accountability and boycott campaigns. More importantly, it can help move such efforts beyond individual consumer choices toward action by governments, financial institutions, and regulatory bodies.
This is particularly relevant as Western governments begin taking measures of their own.
On September 8, 12 countries—Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom—announced their intention either to introduce national restrictions or support European restrictions on trade with illegal Israeli settlements. Britain went further, banning settlement goods and moving against companies involved in settlement construction.
The significance was difficult to miss. Heavyweights such as Britain, France, and Canada were no longer merely condemning settlement expansion; they were beginning to attach economic consequences to it.
But here lies the challenge: Reports, databases, and sanctions remain insufficient—and risk becoming meaningless—unless they are followed by sustained monitoring and practical action.
What is the worth of sanctions if they are not enforced, expanded, and accompanied by political pressure capable of changing Israeli behavior?
Decisions, lists, and threats are double-edged swords. They can become launchpads for sustained and meaningful political action. Or they can be used to mollify civil society, allowing politicians to buy time and votes while avoiding any fundamental policy change.
However, there is a way to help distinguish between the two.
An independent international monitoring group, composed of and supported by civil society figures with recognized moral authority, could systematically track governments that have committed to sanctions, boycotts, or trade restrictions: What was promised, what was implemented, what loopholes remain, and whether measures are producing tangible consequences.
Monitoring these governments is becoming almost as important as monitoring Israel itself.
The same principle applies to UN reports. Palestinian and international civil society organizations must incorporate their findings into the growing global boycott and accountability movement, while governments must ensure that companies under their jurisdiction are not contributing to illegal settlement activities.
Considering that Israel continues its genocidal assault on Gaza while accelerating settlement expansion and annexation measures in the West Bank, none of these steps can ever be sufficient on their own. They are, however, meaningful steps in the right direction.
Palestinians expect—and deserve—far more than the bare minimum. The situation in the occupied territories is simply too urgent for symbolic politics. Every passing day should bring another measure of accountability: another restriction, another divestment, another sanction, another political or economic consequence.
Israel has operated for decades on the assumption that it is effectively untouchable—that condemnation will remain rhetorical, reports will gather dust, and Western governments will ultimately retreat when meaningful pressure becomes politically costly.
That assumption must end.
For the Israeli mindset to change, the consequences of occupation, annexation, and genocide must become unmistakable. Sanctions cannot merely be announced; they must be enforced. Boycotts cannot remain symbolic; they must carry an economic cost. International law cannot simply be invoked; it must have consequences.
The real measure of these initiatives, therefore, is not how many companies appear on a list or how many governments announce sanctions. The real measure is whether these actions can finally impose a political and economic price on Israel high enough to make occupation, annexation, and genocide unsustainable.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Battle Over Illegal E1 Settlement in Occupied West Bank Escalates a Month Before Israeli Election
Critics around the world continue to call the proposed settlement "a plan to progress the forced displacement and ethnic cleansing of Palestinians."
Sep 27, 2026
Israel's far-right finance minister and other settlers living in the illegally occupied West Bank fumed on Sunday after their country's attorney general pushed a key deadline for the widely condemned E1 project until after the Israeli Knesset election.
Although the International Court of Justice, plus governments and human rights groups around the world, have concluded that all Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territory violate international law, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government has charged ahead with expansion plans, granting final approval for the building of 3,401 housing units in the E1 area last year.
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich had celebrated that decision, declaring that the project "buries the idea of a Palestinian state," as it would split the West Bank in two by connecting Jerusalem and the settlement Ma'ale Adumim. While signing a related agreement a year ago, Netanyahu similarly said that "there will be no Palestinian state."
Despite an ongoing legal challenge to the E1 plan from Bedouin Palestinians who live in the area and Israeli peace groups, Israel's Ministry of Construction and Housing last month issued a tender to build seven residential compounds with 1,234 units, giving contractors until October 19—a week before the October 27 election—to submit bids.
"This is a last-minute maneuver that is part of the scorched-earth policy the government is pursuing at the end of its term to secure long years of conflict and bloodshed for Israel," the Israeli watchdog Peace Now said at the time. "The government is trying to sign contracts with contractors before the elections so that it will be much harder for the next government to cancel the construction."
The office of Israeli Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara this week ordered a monthlong postponement of the deadline for bids, "so that it will fall after Election Day, thereby reducing the concern that the tender could be used for prohibited election propaganda."
Smotrich on Sunday accused her of "trying to stop the construction in E1" and "interfering in the election campaign" to help Gadi Eisenkot, the Yashar party leader who could lead a coalition government that ousts Likud's Netanyahu, depending on the results.
The finance minister called on Supreme Court Justice Noam Sohlberg, who chairs the Central Elections Committee (CEC), to intervene to "ensure that the attorney general and her people do not turn into active players in the election campaign in an attempt to back up the left, prevent the right from forming a government, and to enable the establishment of a Palestinian state that would endanger the existence of the state of Israel."
Ma'ale Adumim also challenged the attorney general's move on Sunday, with a petition to the High Court of Justice. Mayor Guy Yifrach said that "if the claim is that continuing the tender is political, I say exactly the opposite: Stopping it now is an intervention with political implications."
"The E1 plan is already facing heavy international pressure, and developers and contractors need certainty," Yifrach added. "Is it not enough that outside Israel they are trying to deter them from the project, now we are adding uncertainty from within our home as well?"
Earlier this month, the United Kingdom, France, and Canada jointly announced bans on imports from illegal Israeli settlements, and partnered with nine other nations—Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden—for a statement that describes the situation in the West Bank as "rapidly deteriorating amid unprecedented levels of settler violence and settlement expansion, including the unacceptable decision to publish tenders for the E1 settlement project."
Then, 19 US Senate Democrats on Wednesday introduced a bill to sanction people or companies that facilitate the construction for Israeli settlers in the E1 area, with Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), one of the lead co-sponsors, condemning the project as "a move towards de facto annexation of the West Bank."
Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), another lead sponsor and longtime supporter of Israel, said on social media Friday that "the Netanyahu campaign to extinguish the possibility of a future Palestinian state by building Israeli settlements in the E1 area of the West Bank must end. I'm leading a new effort to sanction those involved in its development and preserve a future pathway for peace."
In addition to pushing for the expansion of settlements in the West Bank, since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel, Netanyahu has overseen a genocidal war against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. Despite a ceasefire agreement reached nearly a year ago, Israeli attacks continue, and the official death toll keeps rising, topping 74,000 on Sunday.
The bleak milestone came two days after The New York Times corroborated Haaretz’s recent reporting that in September 2023, United Arab Emirates President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan warned Netanyahu about now-deceased Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar's plans "for a major event" targeting Israel. The Israeli leader has denied those reports, and even threatened to sue Haaretz.
However, in a signal that Netanyahu and his allies are worried about the upcoming election, the CEC this week voted to disqualify all Arab-majority political parties from the election, while declining to take similar action against Smotrich's Religious Zionism, far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir's Otzma Yehudit, and Zehut, founded by Moshe Feiglin, a former Likud member. The Supreme Court is set to review the disqualifications this week.
Meanwhile, Eisenkot suggested this weekend that the barred parties would not be part of any government he leads. As Haaretz summarized, he said that "all coalition partners would have to recognize Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, uphold the values of the Declaration of Independence, support mandatory military service, and recognize Hamas as a terrorist organization that must be destroyed."
Yoav Segalovich from the United Arab List's Knesset slate responded that anyone seeking to lead the country must "show leadership and not fold in the face of the Likud's scare campaign," adding: "Israel needs deep change and genuine partnership, through courageous leadership. Eisenkot will not have a government without the United Arab List."
Keep ReadingShow Less
UK's New Israel Sanctions Haven't Actually Suspended Any Weapons Transfers
One anti-arms trade advocate said it showed the UK's new policy toward Israel was "nothing more than a soundbite designed to appease voters, whilst failing to deliver meaningful policy change."
Sep 24, 2026
Earlier this month, the UK government announced plans to cut off trade with Israel's illegal settlements in the West Bank—including weapons shipments.
But according to new disclosures made to Parliament, reported Thursday by Declassified UK, the sanctions regime has not actually led to any weapons licenses being suspended or revoked, validating warnings by some critics that the new Labour government's effort to cut ties with Israel's occupation was only skin-deep.
Back in 2024, as Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza was raging, then-Prime Minister Keir Starmer had suspended 30 out of approximately 350 arms export licenses to the country.
According to the UK-based Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), the UK has still approved at least £178 million ($235 million) worth of fixed-value military export licenses to Israel since October 2023—a figure that excludes exports authorized under open licenses, including much of Britain's contribution to the F-35 program.
UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband described the new restriction on arms export licenses as a “double lock against arms sales” to Israel under which the government would continue its existing suspensions and refuse applications for arms that "materially contribute to the occupation” of Palestine.
However, CAAT warned the following day that the policy, while welcome, "does not go far enough," and included several loopholes—including one that allowed the UK to continue supplying F-35 fighter jet parts to an international pool used by the Israeli military and another allowing Israel to potentially use military equipment exported there for use by third countries.
Several prominent leftists in Parliament, including Your Party co-founders Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana, as well as Green Party leader Zack Polanski, said that the trade bans should ultimately be just a first step on the way to a full arms embargo.
On September 16, the UK's trade department acknowledged, following a question from MP Iqbal Mohamed, that "no additional licenses have been revoked or suspended since September 8," according to Declassified.
The department explained that this was "largely because licenses for items that might materially contribute to the occupation have already been suspended because of Israel’s conduct in the Gaza conflict."
Declassified called this into doubt, however:
The government insists that many of the extant licenses for Israel cover items that are for re-export to a third country or military-grade goods for civilian use such as body armor.
Yet fighter jet components are still being exported to global spares pools used by Israel, and UK-made trainer aircraft parts, which help to sustain the F-35 program, continue to flow directly to Tel Aviv.
When asked about trainer aircraft, the trade department told Parliament that such components “are not used in Gaza and… do not materially contribute to Israel’s illegal occupation.”
This is despite the Foreign Office previously acknowledging that Israel’s M-346 trainer aircraft are “used to train [Israeli Air Force] fast-jet pilots” and “facilitate the development of an offensive capacity.”
Dearbhla Minogue, a lawyer from Global Legal Action Network, which took the UK to court over arms exports to Israel in 2024, told the outlet that these revelations appear to indicate that there will be "no concrete consequences for Israel after this government recognized the likelihood of war crimes, ethnic cleansing, and what it terms Israeli terrorism."
"Successive governments have done everything in their power to continue aiding and abetting genocide and war crimes with deadly and devastating consequences," said Sam Perlo-Freeman, CAAT’s research coordinator. "The new so-called ‘double-lock’ on arms exports to Israel exemplifies this."
He added that it is "nothing more than a soundbite designed to appease voters, whilst failing to deliver meaningful policy change, and continuing to allow arms dealers to profit from Israel’s genocide in Gaza."
This news comes days after Prime Minister Andy Burnham also affirmed that the UK would provide military support—specifically “defensive” air-to-air refueling—to Saudi Arabia as it launches new strikes on Yemen’s Houthis.
A new CAAT report says the UK approved £464.8 million in military exports to Saudi Arabia in just the first quarter of 2026, with most of the value consisting of air-to-surface weapons.
The Saudi-led war against Yemen that lasted from 2015-22 killed an estimated 377,000 people from direct and indirect causes. During that time, CAAT found that the UK approved £7.1 billion ($9.4 billion) worth of military goods to Saudi Arabia.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Democrats Push Sanctions Over E1 Settlement Construction in Israeli-Occupied West Bank
"Benjamin Netanyahu's disgraceful policy of expanding West Bank settlements crosses a clear red line and makes Palestinian statehood and lasting peace even more difficult."
Sep 23, 2026
Nineteen US Senate Democrats on Wednesday introduced a bill to sanction people or companies that facilitate the construction of Israeli settlements in the E1 area east of Jerusalem in the West Bank, which would split the illegally occupied Palestinian territory in two.
"The E1 settlement project is a move towards de facto annexation of the West Bank, and those who choose to facilitate settlement construction should understand that they risk losing access to the US financial system," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who is leading the legislation with Sens. Chris Coons (D-Del.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
"The United States must use all diplomatic and economic tools available to counter rapid settlement expansion and extremist settler violence in the West Bank, spiraling trends that will only undermine the prospect of lasting peace for Israelis and Palestinians," she argued.
Critics of the plan to build 3,401 housing units in the E1 area—and recent unprecedented violence by Israeli settlers and soldiers toward Palestinians in the West Bank—have pressured governments across the globe to respond with sanctions. In the face of such pressure, UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband said earlier this month that the E1 plan was designed to "make the two-state solution unviable."
Within the next nine months, Miliband pledged, the United Kingdom's Labour government will "take action against specific companies and individuals who provide services such as construction, infrastructure, financing, or real estate for settlement expansion," and penalize “those who finance or facilitate illegal settlements."
The United Kingdom, France, and Canada have joined forces to ban imports of goods and some services from illegal Israeli settlements. Their foreign ministers also partnered with those from Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden for a joint statement in which they said the situation in the West Bank is "rapidly deteriorating amid unprecedented levels of settler violence and settlement expansion, including the unacceptable decision to publish tenders for the E1 settlement project."
The foreign ministers confirmed their "intention to introduce national and/or support European restrictions on trade in goods with settlements which are illegal under international law, or that they are actively considering these and other measures, in accordance with their national procedures."
In the United States on Wednesday, Wyden took aim at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—who is heading to New York City this week for the United Nations General Assembly, which has sparked fresh calls for his arrest in accordance with an International Criminal Court warrant issued over his government's genocidal war on Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
"Benjamin Netanyahu's disgraceful policy of expanding West Bank settlements crosses a clear red line and makes Palestinian statehood and lasting peace even more difficult," said Wyden. "The United States must stand up against Netanyahu's campaign of violence and aggression against Palestinian civilians and sanction individuals and companies that are complicit in this unlawful action."
Under both Republican President Donald Trump and his Democratic predecessor, former President Joe Biden, the US has given Israel billions of dollars in military support, despite the ongoing slaughter of Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
As the Trump administration pushes a proposed $2.8 billion transfer of 40,000 2,000-pound bombs to Israel—weapons Israeli forces have dropped on civilians in Gaza and Lebanon—polling commissioned by the magazine Liberal Currents and released Monday by the Center for Strategic Politics shows that Americans want Trump and Biden officials held accountable for the genocide.
Although a growing number of lawmakers have joined scholars and rights advocates around the world in condemning Israel's war on Gaza since the October 2023 Hamas-led attack as a genocide, Congress hasn't taken any concrete action to limit military aid to Israel.
The bill unveiled Wednesday is similarly unlikely to go anywhere—even though, as Gallego noted, "for decades, Democrats and Republicans alike have pushed for a two-state solution," and the Israeli construction would "threaten a viable Palestinian state."
"It's a step in the wrong direction," Gallego said of the settlement plan. "This legislation sends a clear message to Prime Minister Netanyahu: The United States stands firmly behind a two-state solution as the only path to real peace and security for all."
Coons—a "staunch" longtime supporter of Israel—pointed out that "for decades, American presidents from both parties have warned successive Israeli governments that construction in E1 threatened the viability of a Palestinian state and was unacceptable to the United States."
However, even if Democrats win back control of the Senate, or perhaps both congressional chambers, in November's midterm elections, there appears to be little appetite within the Trump administration to do or say anything about the E1 plan.
After the European nations' moves earlier this month, Politico highlighted that "the White House's approach to US allies hitting Israeli settlers with sanctions comes down to this: Say as little as possible and let it happen."
Still, according to Coons, "as Palestinian civilians face a campaign of devastation and fear from violent extremist settlers, the United States must send a strong message that this behavior is unacceptable and that it remains committed to freedom, security, prosperity and self-determination for all Israelis and Palestinians."
The bill is backed by the liberal Zionist organization J Street, whose president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, also pointed to previous administrations treating E1 construction "as a clear red line because of the devastating blow it would deal to the possibility of a negotiated resolution to the conflict," and called Trump's failure to enforce that same standard "shameful."
"We applaud Sen. Coons, Warren, Wyden, and Gallego for taking a clear stand to preserve the possibility of peace and long-term security for Israelis and Palestinians," said Ben-Ami, whose group opposes broad boycotts of Israel.
In addition to the four lead sponsors, the bill is co-sponsored by Democratic Sens. Michael Bennet (Colo.), Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), Martin Heinrich (NM), Tim Kaine (Va.), Mark Kelly (Ariz.), Andy Kim (NJ), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Chris Murphy (Conn.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Jack Reed (RI), Brian Schatz (Hawaii), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Elissa Slotkin (Mich.), Chris Van Hollen (Md.), and Peter Welch (Vt.).
Khaled Elgindy, a senior research fellow in the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft's Middle East program and adjunct instructor at Georgetown University's Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, offered some criticism of the bill.
"The 'individuals or groups' enabling E1 is called the Israeli [government]," Elgindy wrote on social media. "This looks like another attempt by D's to look like they're doing something without actually doing something."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Progressive Democrats Urge US to Join Ban on Products From Illegal Israeli Settlements
"While the Trump admin attacks the move, Congress can and must act," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen.
Sep 09, 2026
As the UK, Canada, and France enact bans on goods from illegal Israeli settlements, some progressive Democrats are calling for the US to join the effort to sanction the escalating wave of state-backed settler terrorism against Palestinians in the West Bank.
"Finally, some European countries are going beyond the ritual denouncing of expanding illegal Israeli settlements and are taking action to uphold international law. It is a modest but important step," said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) in an X post on Tuesday. "While the Trump admin attacks the move, Congress can and must act."
He was joined by Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, who said the trade ban was a "step in the right direction and toward ending the occupation," and added that "the US must do the same."
The Trump administration, which has often moved in lockstep with Israel, had a muted response to news of the trade ban. Trump himself has not commented on the sanction effort, and according to Axios, he did not push back when briefed on the plan by UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham.
But while US Secretary of State Marco Rubio says "stability" in the West Bank is a top priority, including halting the "uptick in violence," he made clear the administration opposed the actions taken by nations cutting off trade with the settlements.
"Obviously, we're not going to do what the UK did," Rubio told reporters on Tuesday.
Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) called the expansion of Israeli settlements "an ugly land grab carried out through violence and terrorism," and added that "any American president serious about achieving peace" should be willing to cut off trade with the settlements.
But Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), a possible 2028 presidential candidate who was detained by a group of armed settlers during a trip to the West Bank in July, acknowledged that such a ban was unlikely to be enacted under Trump. He said that "the next American president" should ban trade with the settlements "and recognize a Palestinian state."
Rep. Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.), a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, said he "wholeheartedly" welcomed the trade ban enacted by the UK, adding that "international law must mean something, and accountability must apply to all." However, he stopped short of saying the US should join the ban itself.
Conversely, fellow Illinoisan Rep. Jesús "Chuy" García (D) said the US "must take this long overdue step, and do much more to end its support for Israeli occupation and genocide."
Any effort to compel the US to restrict products from Israeli settlements would likely need to come through Congress.
In June, amid the recent historic uptick of settler attacks, Van Hollen and Castro led dozens of lawmakers in a call for the State Department to comply with an existing law that requires US loan guarantees available to Israel to decrease in accordance with its expenditure on illegal settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Last year, Van Hollen was joined by Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) and three other senators in the Democratic caucus proposing legislation that would codify Biden-era sanctions on individual violent Israeli settlers, which were revoked by Trump.
However, no legislation has yet been introduced aimed at restricting trade with the settlements.
Meanwhile, Democratic Party leaders in Congress, namely House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), have not issued public statements on the international sanctions initiative.
That puts them at odds even with some pro-Israel groups, like the liberal lobbying organization J Street, which endorsed the international ban on trading with the settlements on Tuesday.
“We welcome the UK, France, and Canada’s decision to ban the import of goods produced in settlements, as well as the UK’s intention to sanction those who finance, facilitate, or construct new settlements," said the group's president, Jeremy Ben-Ami. "Support for Israeli security and strong opposition to the settlement project are not in contradiction; they go hand in hand. Israel’s closest allies are making clear that the status quo is no longer acceptable."
"We call on the US government and the European Union to pursue similar action," Ben-Ami said. "The international community must make clear that efforts to foreclose Palestinian self-determination have consequences."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'I’ll Wear It as a Badge of Honor,' Says MP Sultana After Israel Bars Entry to 11 UK Lawmakers
"I will not be intimidated into silence," said MP Zarah Sultana. "If anything, this ban only strengthens my resolve to keep speaking out."
Sep 08, 2026
Zarah Sultana, a member of the UK Parliament, said she won't stop speaking about the rights of Palestinians after Israel banned her from entering the country on Tuesday.
"Given that this is a fascist government presiding over genocide, apartheid and an illegal occupation, I’ll wear it as a badge of honor," she said in a post to X. "I will not be intimidated into silence. I will continue to speak out against Israel’s genocide and against the UK’s complicity. If anything, this ban only strengthens my resolve to keep speaking out."
Sultana, who represents Coventry South and is a co-founder of the left-wing Your Party, was one of 11 members of Parliament whom Israel announced it was blocking from entry in retaliation after the UK joined Canada, France, and other nations to announce an import ban on goods from Israeli settlements in the West Bank, which are considered illegal under international law.
Following a year of record violence against Palestinians in the territory, UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband said the import ban was in response to the "ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in areas of the West Bank—perpetrated by settler terrorists."
Israel has reacted with fury at the move, closing the British consulate in East Jerusalem, which handles relations with Palestinians in East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and Gaza.
Also banned from the country are UK Labour MPs Diane Abbott, Richard Burgon, John McDonnell, and Naz Shah; Green MPs Siân Berry, Ellie Chowns, Carla Denyer, Adrian Ramsay, and Hannah Spencer; as well as Jeremy Corbyn, who led the Labour Party from 2015-20 before co-founding Your Party with Sultana in 2025.
Remarking on his and his colleagues' ban from the country, Corbyn said Israel's treatment of Palestinians was "the real scandal."
"I have visited all parts of Palestine on several occasions, where I have witnessed the horrors of occupation, as well as the resilience and humanity of the Palestinian people," Corbyn wrote on X. "They are the ones who suffer from Israel's apartheid. It is their freedom which is egregiously curtailed, alongside thousands of Palestinian refugees who are denied the right of return."
He added: "As the world wakes up to the genocide in Gaza, it is shocking that Israel continues to deny entry to UN investigators and international journalists. Israel doesn't want the world to see what it is doing—but we can never give up in our attempts to expose the truth."
Israel also banned Fahad Ansari, a lawyer who has represented Hamas’ political wing in court in the UK and—like Sultana—said on X, “I am neither British nor an MP but do take this as a badge of honor (although pretty sure I’m already a persona non grata in the apartheid state).”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Must Be Just the Beginning': UK, France, Canada Move to Ban Imports From Israeli Settlements
"Today, we refuse to be bystanders to further suffering and to the destruction of the two-state solution," said UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband.
Sep 08, 2026
The United Kingdom, France, and Canada joined forces on Tuesday to ban imports of goods and some services from illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, where settlers and soldiers are assailing, displacing, and killing Palestinians at an unprecedented rate with the backing of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government.
"Today, we refuse to be bystanders to further suffering and to the destruction of the two-state solution," Ed Miliband, the UK's foreign secretary, said in a speech to the House of Commons. Miliband pointed to the Israeli government's recent approval of construction projects that would evict Palestinian communities and "place settlements directly between East Jerusalem and the West Bank, cutting through the heart of Palestine."
"Let’s be clear what this means: the creation of a set of facts on the ground to make the two-state solution unviable," said Miliband, in what was described as the UK government's most forceful condemnation of Israeli conduct in the West Bank to date. "The British government agrees that there is ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in areas of the West Bank—perpetrated by settler terrorists. And all too often the Israeli government has turned a blind eye to this and worse, members of it have made statements and taken actions to support the forced displacement of Palestinians."
Miliband said the UK government would "take action against specific companies and individuals who provide services such as construction, infrastructure, financing, or real estate for settlement expansion" and penalize "those who finance or facilitate illegal settlements." He said the sanctions would be in place within six to nine months.
Miliband emphasized that in banning imports from Israel's West Bank settlements, the UK was not acting alone. The British foreign secretary noted that France and Canada will also "ban the import of goods from illegal settlements," joining "the Netherlands, Ireland, Belgium, Spain and Norway—which have either banned goods or are in the process of doing so."
Jean-Noël Barrot, France's foreign affairs minister, wrote on social media that France is cutting off imports from illegal Israeli settlements "because the West Bank is on the brink of explosion: unchecked expansion of colonization in violation of international law, surge in violence perpetrated by extremist settlers against Palestinians, acts of terror denounced by the Israeli authorities themselves."
"France cannot, through its trade, support a situation that threatens the security of Israelis and Palestinians alike, as well as peace and stability in the region," Barrot wrote. "Europe must uphold the same imperative."
In a joint statement on Tuesday, the foreign ministers of 12 nations—the UK, France, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Sweden—said that the situation in the West Bank is "rapidly deteriorating amid unprecedented levels of settler violence and settlement expansion, including the unacceptable decision to publish tenders for the E1 settlement project."
The foreign ministers confirmed their "intention to introduce national and/or support European restrictions on trade in goods with settlements which are illegal under international law, or that they are actively considering these and other measures, in accordance with their national procedures."
"In this regard, the UK, France, and Canada welcome the important action already taken by Ireland, Spain, the Netherlands, Norway, and Belgium, and will bring forward national measures to ban trade in settlement goods," the statement continued. "The government of Israel must immediately halt the expansion of settlements and civilian administrative powers, ensure accountability for settler violence, and investigate allegations against Israeli forces."
Advocates largely welcomed the governments' announcements while stressing that they should be the starting point for more sweeping action to confront the Israeli government's illegal annexation efforts in the West Bank and crimes against humanity across the Palestinian territories, including the decimated Gaza Strip.
"Today’s announcement is the result of many years of work by campaigners and Palestinians themselves fighting to end severe injustice," said Nick Dearden, director of the UK-based advocacy group Global Justice Now. "We know this move will be very popular in Britain. But it must be just the beginning. How can we cooperate with a military guilty of the most serious abuses of international law? How can we trade with a country that stands accused of genocide at the world’s highest court?"
Omar Barghouti, co-founder of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, dismissed the UK government's sanctions announcement as "largely performative," but said they also "reflect the impact of relentless public pressure on the current government."
"The UK is legally obliged to take serious measures to end its complicity with the State of Israel, not merely with the settlements, per the [International Court of Justice]," said Barghouti. "While Miliband says, 'We will not acquiesce in the destruction of the two-state solution,' he has not said how the UK will stop its active contribution to the Israeli-US led destruction of the international legal system and the drive towards a might-makes-right order."
US and Israeli officials responded furiously to the UK's sanctions announcement. Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel's extremist national security minister, called for the closure of the British consulate in East Jerusalem, while Israel's finance minister demanded the expulsion of the British ambassador.
Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, characterized the UK's trade ban as "discrimination against the Jewish people" and suggested that individual American states such as Florida could retaliate against the British government.
US Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.), a rabidly pro-Israel lawmaker and anti-Muslim bigot, wrote on social media that "Florida is one of Britain’s largest trading partners" and signaled that the state could move to boycott UK goods.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israeli Finance Minister Demands Expulsion of UK Ambassador Over Settlement Trade Ban
The United Kingdom's Labour government is set to announce a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Sep 08, 2026
The United Kingdom on Tuesday is expected to announce a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, a plan that prompted a furious response from far-right Israeli and American officials even as British diplomats privately acknowledged that the new sanctions package would be mostly symbolic.
"Expel the British ambassador tonight!" Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich wrote in a social media post ahead of the official announcement. "We will not be a doormat trampled by an antisemitic government, in a country conquered by radical Islam, trying to save itself from economic and social decline by attacking Jews and the State of Israel."
UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, who is Jewish, is set to unveil the trade ban as the Israeli government aggressively accelerates its unlawful land grabs and expulsion of Palestinians in the West Bank, where violent rampages by Israeli settlers have reached unprecedented levels. The trade ban was developed after the Israeli government advanced a plan to build more than 1,200 new settlement homes in the West Bank.
The Guardian reported Monday that "in his statement to MPs, Miliband is expected to use firmer language than his recent predecessors in calling out the humanitarian injustices suffered by Palestinians in Gaza."
"The steps he lays out are likely to fall short of the full set of demands made by Palestinian advocacy groups," the outlet added, "but they will still be seen as a sign that the UK is moving beyond traditional rhetorical support for a two-state solution towards active steps to forestall the expansion of illegal settlements in the West Bank—widely seen as intended to destroy the prospect of a Palestinian state."
New UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham reportedly spoke with US President Donald Trump on Monday about the impending trade ban, which drew condemnation from the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee.
Behind the scenes, according to Bloomberg, UK diplomats "privately told the US that the sanctions are largely symbolic and will have no material impact on the UK’s wider relationship with Israel on trade or security, in a bid to soothe the Trump administration’s response."
Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, told The Guardian that a ban on trade with Israeli settlements would be an "absolutely important" change in UK government policy.
Nick Dearden, director of the UK-based advocacy group Global Justice Now, wrote on social media that "a settlement ban is welcome but we must go further."
"Hope the government will include services and will announce new bans of weapons sales and military coordination tomorrow," Dearden added. "The comms is an improvement but we need action."
Reuters reported that the impact of the policy move on bilateral trade with Israel is "likely to be minimal, with details unclear of how the UK will differentiate between goods originating in West Bank settlements [and] products made in Israel."
Keep ReadingShow Less
33 Dems Help Pass House Bill That Would Strip Funds From Colleges That Boycott Israel
"The goal here is to basically say every university not only cannot refuse cooperation with Israel but must actively seek every opportunity to cooperate with Israel,” said one analyst.
Sep 03, 2026
The US House of Representatives on Thursday passed what critics say could be one of the most severe infringements on free expression in recent memory—a bill that could effectively require colleges and universities to do business with Israel or risk losing federal funds.
As Israel's genocide in Gaza and accelerating ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the West Bank continue to fuel protests, the bill is the latest piece of legislation aimed at punishing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which uses nonviolent economic tactics to pressure Israel to end its illegal occupation of Palestinian territory and human rights abuses.
HR 4795, introduced in July 2025 by Reps. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) and Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), is known as the Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act. But Lara Friedman, the president of the Foundation for Middle East Peace, described it as an "Orwellian" turn of phrase for what the legislation actually does.
"The goal here is to basically say every university not only cannot refuse cooperation with Israel but must actively seek every opportunity to cooperate with Israel,” she told Responsible Statecraft. “And if they're not doing that, they're pro-BDS and anti-Israel.”
As the outlet described:
[The bill] would bar colleges that receive federal funds from engaging in what it defines as a “nonexpressive commercial boycott” of Israel, including “refusals to deal” or terminating business relationships in order to limit commercial ties without a “valid business reason.” The law would require these institutions to submit annual certification that they were giving students and faculty access to academic programs in Israel on the same terms as programs in other countries.
In a brief opposing the bill, Friedman argued that it was not just forcing universities to do business with Israel, but with its settlements in the West Bank, which are considered illegal under international law. With backing from the Israeli state, violence by Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank has exploded to never-before-seen highs this year, according to the United Nations.
"This legislation," Friedman wrote, "sets up a situation in which the alleged absence of engagement with any Israeli partner/party, including in settlements, will become the basis for an accusation of boycott, putting universities in the position where, if they universities want to avoid being accused of boycotting Israel/settlements, they will need to adopt an affirmative policy of prioritizing maximal engagement/partnership with Israeli entities (including in settlements)."
The bill passed by a 237-169 vote, with support from all but two Republicans—Reps. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Warren Davidson (R-Ohio). And although the vast majority of Democratic voters now hold negative views of Israel, 33 Democrats also voted in favor of the bill.
The legislation now heads to the narrowly Republican-controlled US Senate, where it would need 60 votes to advance.
Introducing the bill last year, Gottheimer said it was necessary because BDS was an "antisemitic, hate-fueled... movement" that "seeks to destroy Israel—and has no place on our college campuses."
But even critics of the BDS movement, like Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), chafed at its potential chilling effect on protected speech.
"No matter how strongly I oppose the BDS movement, I also believe that those who engage in BDS have a First Amendment right to do so," Nadler said before voting against the bill. "The First Amendment right to free speech does not apply only to agreeable speech."
He cited a letter sent to Congress by the ACLU opposing the bill's contention that schools should need a "valid business reason" to cut ties with Israel.
"Many of those engaged in boycotts of Israel do so not for commercial reasons, but because they wish to express their political opposition to the policies of the Israeli government—matters of overwhelming public concern and debate in the present moment. HR 4795’s labeling such boycotts as ‘non-expressive’ does nothing to change this reality," the letter said.
The bill comes as members of Congress, especially Democrats, are under increasing scrutiny for their support from pro-Israel lobbying groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), whose political spending arm has poured more than $104 million into supporting its preferred candidates this election cycle.
Meanwhile, President Donald Trump has spent more than six months embroiled in a costly war with Iran that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu played a key role in persuading him to launch.
"We just got dragged into a war by Benjamin Netanyahu. He's bragging about it," Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) told Julian Andreone of Drop Site News. "That's about as embarrassing as you can get... So let's leave universities alone."
Aaron Regunberg, a contributing editor at The New Republic, described it as outrageous that Democrats who supported the bill were "actively joining the far-right's war on higher education in order to shield a genocidal ethnostate that most Americans increasingly want nothing to do with."
Dylan Williams, the vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, said the bill was "another effort to single out Israel for special treatment and erode Americans’ rights on its behalf."
"Will it be your child who can’t afford to go to college after 33 Democrats voted with Republicans to help Trump defund US universities? Because it certainly won’t be any of theirs," he said. "Shame on them for joining the attack on our schools and constitutional rights on behalf of Israel."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy