More than 130 legal experts, including 18 King’s Counsel (KCs), have written to Andy Burnham to argue that the United Kingdom’s current sanctions on Israeli settlements fall far short of the obligations imposed by the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) finding that the occupation is unlawful. The letter, dated Tuesday 15 September 2026, calls for a broader and more rigorous set of measures, ranging from a full arms embargo to the extension of sanctions to insurance, accountancy services and digital infrastructure. While welcoming the import ban announced by Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband last week, the signatories contend that the UK’s approach remains improperly narrow when compared with sanctions imposed on Russia, and that the “elephant in the room” is the illegality of the occupation itself. The intervention has sparked a diplomatic spat, with Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar dismissing the UK’s actions as “outrageous lies” and accusing the government of working systematically against Israel.
Legal Community Demands Stronger Action
The coalition of jurists, which includes Michael Mansfield KC, Imran Khan KC and former Lord Justice of Appeal Alan Moses, argues that the UK’s present sanctions are a “necessary corrective” but insufficient to meet the UK’s duties under the 2024 ICJ advisory opinion. That opinion ordered Israel to end the occupation “as rapidly as possible” and required other states not to recognise or assist the unlawful situation. In the letter, the experts stress that the UK’s economic relationship with Israel continues to sustain the illegal occupation, settlements and other serious breaches of fundamental international law.
“We ask it to commit to further and more rigorous measures to ensure that no part of the UK’s economic relationship with Israel continues to sustain the illegal occupation itself, and the settlements and other serious violations of fundamental rules of international law perpetrated through its conduct,” the letter states. The signatories urge the government to adopt “robust coercive measures” aimed at bringing all such violations, including the occupation itself, to an end.
One of the letter’s principal drafters, Professor Ralph Wilde of University College London, welcomed the UK’s recent recognition of the West Bank occupation as unlawful as an “important shift”, but warned that the focus on settlements alone ignores the broader illegality. “The elephant in the room is the illegality of the occupation itself,” said Wilde, who acted as senior counsel and legal adviser to the Arab League in the ICJ case. “It’s not just simply the settlements and the abuse of treatment and the genocide, which of course are also wrong, it’s Israel’s very presence.” He added that there is a “mismatch between saying Israel’s very presence there is illegal, but then only focusing on the question of the settlers and the settlements. If the problem is with the settlements themselves, then the problem is with the state that establishes them.”
Scope of Current UK Sanctions
Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband announced a package of measures last week that includes an import ban on goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine, alongside other punitive actions. The government’s spokesperson described the move as “the biggest reset in the UK’s approach to protecting and securing the two‑state solution in a generation”. According to the spokesperson, the UK has shown “commitment to international law and our refusal to be bystanders to further suffering”.
The sanctions, however, are limited to trade in settlement goods and do not extend to other economic sectors that indirectly support the occupation. The signatories argue that sanctions on Russia, by contrast, apply to broader economic structures that underpin unlawful conduct, rather than being confined to a single territorial area. They point out that the arms trade treaty’s Article 6(3) prohibits transfers of arms where a state has knowledge of crimes such as ethnic cleansing, a charge Miliband levelled against Israel in the West Bank.
The letter calls for a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel, asserting that the current measures fail to address the flow of weapons that could be used in further violations. It also demands that the UK confirm publicly that no public body, pension scheme or sovereign fund holds investments linked to settlements. Extending sanctions to cover insurance, accountancy services and digital infrastructure would, the experts argue, cut off vital support networks that enable settlement activity to continue.
International Law and the ICJ Ruling
The ICJ’s 2024 advisory opinion remains a cornerstone of the legal argument. The court’s finding that the occupation is unlawful imposes positive obligations on all states, including the United Kingdom, to refrain from recognising the situation as lawful and to avoid aiding or assisting it. The letter stresses that the UK’s current sanctions do not fully reflect these obligations.
The experts highlight that the ICJ’s opinion also requires states to take “appropriate steps” to ensure that the occupation ends “as rapidly as possible”. They argue that the UK’s current approach falls short of taking such steps, particularly in the realm of economic engagement. The signatories contend that the UK’s economic relationship with Israel, even when limited to non‑settlement trade, still provides revenue that can be diverted to support the occupation.
In addition to the arms embargo, the letter urges the UK to adopt “robust coercive measures” that target the financial architecture supporting the settlements. This includes pressuring financial institutions to divest from settlement‑linked projects and to deny services that facilitate settlement expansion. The experts also call for the UK to align its sanctions regime with the comprehensive nature of the ICJ’s ruling, ensuring that no aspect of the economic relationship with Israel is left untouched.
Reactions and Fallout
The Israeli government responded sharply to the UK’s actions. Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar accused Miliband of “outrageous lies” and claimed that the UK was “systematically working against the state of Israel”. Sa’ar’s remarks reflect a broader diplomatic tension that has emerged as Western nations grapple with how to enforce international law in the face of ongoing settlement expansion.
The UK’s sanctions were announced against a backdrop of escalating settler attacks on Palestinian villages in the West Bank and the issuance of an Israeli tender for 1,200 homes in the E1 settlement, east of Jerusalem. The E1 project is seen as a potential choke‑point that could effectively split the West Bank, jeopardising the viability of a future Palestinian state. The UK’s measures, the legal experts argue, must address such large‑scale settlement plans directly.
Domestic reaction within the UK has been mixed. While some NGOs and human‑rights groups have praised the government for taking any action at all, others argue that the sanctions are symbolic and lack the teeth needed to bring about change. The government’s spokesperson maintains that the new approach represents a “significant reset” and that further steps will be taken in coordination with international partners.
Why it Matters
The dispute over the adequacy of UK sanctions underscores a broader challenge for the international community: translating the ICJ’s landmark ruling into concrete state behaviour. If the United Kingdom, a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a leading voice on human rights, fails to implement measures that truly sever support for illegal occupation, it risks eroding the credibility of international law itself. The letter from over 130 legal experts serves as a call to action, urging the UK to align its policies with its stated commitments and to set a precedent that could galvanise other nations to close the gap between rhetoric and reality in the pursuit of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.