While following Channel 4’s coverage of Tel Aviv’s decision to close the British Consulate in Jerusalem, I was struck by a comment from the presenter or commentator on the story. He noted, in essence, that the consulate was older than the “State of Israel” itself.

The remark may seem like a passing historical observation, but it captures something of the paradox in the situation we are witnessing today.

Britain’s diplomatic presence in Jerusalem dates back decades before the establishment of the State of Israel. Yet this long-standing British institution now finds itself facing an Israeli decision to close it, against the backdrop of measures taken by London toward Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Britain’s diplomatic presence in Jerusalem dates back decades before the establishment of the State of Israel. Yet this long-standing British institution now finds itself facing an Israeli decision to close it, against the backdrop of measures taken by London toward Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.

And this inevitably raises the question: what comes next?

What happens after Tel Aviv closes the British Consulate in Jerusalem in protest at a British position that has begun, albeit to a limited extent, to move from condemning settlement activity to taking practical measures against it?

The British government has announced a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories. In principle, this is a step that deserves to be welcomed, but without exaggerating its scale or impact.

It is not a comprehensive boycott of Israel, nor broad economic sanctions, nor a measure that could halt the settlement project on its own.

Its importance, however, lies in the fact that it raises a question that has long remained unanswered: if Britain says that the settlements are illegal, why should it treat products originating from them as ordinary goods whose circulation poses no problem?

Its importance, however, lies in the fact that it raises a question that has long remained unanswered: if Britain says that the settlements are illegal, why should it treat products originating from them as ordinary goods whose circulation poses no problem?

This is a point worth pausing over.

The problem is not only the settlements themselves, as communities established on occupied Palestinian land, but also the........

© Middle East Monitor