In a matter of days, Ed Sheeran has gone from the most agreeable, defiantly middle-of-the-road singer-songwriter on the pop charts to music’s newest villain. The Times’ August Brown and Mikael Wood gathered to break down what happened — and to figure out what it all means.
August Brown: To recap, Sheeran dropped his tour opener, the rapper Macklemore, after the MC described Israel’s actions in Gaza as a genocide and said “Free Palestine” onstage this month at two New Jersey dates of Sheeran’s ongoing stadium tour. Macklemore, in a statement, cited his long friendship with Sheeran while criticizing the singer for allegedly acquiescing to a demand from Robert Kraft, the owner of the NFL’s New England Patriots, that the rapper not be allowed to perform at the Patriots’ Gillette Stadium outside Boston due to his comments.
Kraft, a Trump-supporting billionaire with his own colorful history, released a statement about the tour, saying he was “ensuring that events held at our venue do not provide a platform for hate speech.”
But Sheeran, who performed at Kraft’s wedding in 2022, arguably made things much worse with his own comments on the decision to drop Macklemore from the tour, which ranged from shifting accountability (“Macklemore coming off tour was the promoter’s decision, it was not mine”) to promising that he held compassionate beliefs on this volatile issue but wouldn’t articulate them publicly (“I am not complicit. I have my personal views on this devastating conflict. Just because I choose not to speak publicly, it doesn’t mean I don’t have them, and it doesn’t mean I don’t care.”)
This prompted Sheeran’s remaining openers — including the musician and producer Finneas, the Danish rock combo Lukas Graham and singer-songwriter Aaron Rowe — to drop off the tour, each giving their plainspoken support for both Macklemore’s advocacy and the Palestinian people as their reasons for leaving. The traditional Irish group Beoga, which backs Sheeran for a portion of his nightly show, also quit the tour, saying it was responding to “the silencing of Macklemore by Zionist lobbies.”
It’s too soon to know how this will affect a CVS-core pop star like Sheeran, but it’s clear that for the first time in his career, he’s chosen the path of maximum conflict and controversy for little gain. What do you think he should he have done instead?
Macklemore
(Morgan Hancock / Getty Images)
Mikael Wood: Not let Macklemore be booted from his tour?
Look, I understand Sheeran’s position here: that he views himself as an artist whose audience comes to his show precisely because they’d like to avoid the messy realities of the world for two or three hours. We can choose a different day to discuss how tenable (or not) that position is here in the era of a reality-TV president who long ago blurred the line between politics and entertainment.
But setting aside one’s views on Israel and Palestine, it’s impossible for me to see how Sheeran ever thought his actions would be seen as anything other than allowing a fellow artist to be silenced — a clear loser in the eyes of both the left and the right.
It would be one thing if Macklemore’s comments in New Jersey truly resembled the hate speech that Kraft accused him of dispensing. (Many online have posted images of a costume the rapper wore onstage in 2014 that resembled an ugly Jewish caricature; Macklemore apologized at the time, saying he understood the criticism.)
And of course I get that the very idea of hate speech is slippery — one reason, perhaps, that the folks at AT&T Stadium near Dallas (where Sheeran is scheduled to perform next month) appear to have no problem hosting a concert in November by Ye, who not so long ago released a song called, uh, “Heil Hitler.”
But given how measured Macklemore’s comments were, Sheeran’s decision to go along with the demands for his removal feels less like a fulfillment of his desire to create a conflict-free zone and more like a capitulation to a rich and powerful friend.
August, what do you make of the various statements from the musicians who’ve opted to leave the tour in the wake of all this?
August Brown: The other openers had the most to lose here by bowing out of a huge tour. Yet they took unambiguous stances in favor of Macklemore’s Palestinian advocacy. (On Wednesday, the rapper said on Instagram that he planned to donate “the entire $1 million of my net earnings” from Sheeran’s tour to six organizations “working directly to support the Palestinian people.” He also invited Kraft to match his donation.)
“Artists must not be silenced when they speak up for the oppressed,” Finneas wrote. “I stand with Palestine and its people.”
Lukas Graham went even harder: “We should be able to speak about war, about civilians being killed, about children who deserve to grow up,” the group wrote. “Money doesn’t give you the right to own the conversation.”
Sheeran could have done what many fans regard as the right thing: Defy Kraft’s demands, cancel the Gillette Stadium dates with Macklemore and reroute the tour to somewhere that would support an opening act’s fairly anodyne support of a popular human rights cause. Sheeran is extremely wealthy, and he’d have been on the right side of history, if for no other reason than to say that billionaires shouldn’t have a veto over an artist’s human rights advocacy onstage.
I’m sympathetic to the idea that crews’ livelihoods and fans’ investment in the shows are meaningful things to toss out. But an artist as big as Sheeran can make up the difference. Even a hypothetical statement like “I stand for Macklemore’s freedom of speech and the rights of the Palestinian people. My team’s livelihoods depends on the shows happening, so I will play the Gillette dates as planned,” with a promise for a donation or a benefit show with Macklemore down the line — even that would have smoothed this over.
But his actions here — deflecting accountability, being vague yet defensive about his own politics — and his history with Kraft suggest his sympathies might not lie with the causes his opening acts stand for.
It’s interesting that Beoga and Aaron Rowe, both Irish acts, acknowledged their own country’s history of colonial occupation as reason to stand up for Palestinians (and free speech around it). “Ed has been a friend to me and has changed my life, I could never thank him enough for this,” Rowe wrote in his statement. “But as Irish people we know all too well about genocide, forced famine, and violent occupation.”
Even Lukas Graham cited the band’s roots in Christiania, a Danish enclave with a history as an anarchist commune, as an example they’re following by bailing on this tour. Sheeran likes to say that, through his father, he is culturally Irish though he was born and raised in England. In a country that rallied for Kneecap, the Irish rap group and advocates for Palestinians, his reputation is likely taking a real hit. Whether that extends to his ultra-mainstream U.S. fan base remains to be seen.
Not every artist is obliged to comment on contentious issues — though the success of Olivia Rodrigo’s Daisy Chain Fields festival, which raised money for an array of abortion-rights advocacy groups, showed that A-listers can speak out when they want to. But whatever he actually believes, Sheeran’s long-cultivated neutrality is in tatters. Taking a stand would have been the path of least resistance. Instead, he committed the most basic onstage error: a failure to read the room.
Sanctions announced by the British government on Tuesday targeting West Bank settlements have upended the UK’s decades-long balancing act and provoked furious condemnation from the Israeli government that has all but severed relations between the two.
Coming a year on from recognizing Palestinian statehood, the Labour-led UK government confirmed it was tightening restrictions on arms exports to Israel and was placing bans on the import of all goods from settlements and on some services, including construction, financing, infrastructure, real estate, and settlement advertising.
Addressing Parliament, Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, who is of Jewish heritage and lost multiple members of his family during the Holocaust, labeled the settlers “terrorists” who had received tacit support for their practices by an Israeli government.
UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband announces the policy in the British Parliament. (AFP)
“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 added.
The move marks part of a broader international pushback on settlement activity, with Canada and France also announcing on Tuesday they would join Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the UK in enacting bans.
Against a backdrop of looming Israeli elections, questions are now being asked: Does the news out of London mark a long-term structural shift in its relationship with Israel, or is it part of a coordinated effort to put pressure on the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ahead of elections in late October?
In Israel, early political response was definitive, with National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir leaning into a global call by right-wing governments as he urged the country to “publicly recognize that the Malvinas Islands (Falklands) are Argentine territory under occupation.”
He added: “The British are not content with merely occupying the territory; they also carry out oil drilling there and steal money from the Argentine people.”
Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, meanwhile, claimed “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.”
Addressing the media shortly after Miliband’s announcement, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar stated plainly that the UK was engaging in election interference as he warned that the Israeli population “emphatically” rejected Palestinian statehood.
Smotrich speaks during the official inauguration ceremony of a new Israeli settlement in the occupied West Bank. (AFP file)
Announcing countermeasures, Saar said Israel would close the British Consulate in Jerusalem; remove British representatives from the International Gaza Support Center in Kiryat Gat in southern Israel; terminate the UK’s role in training Palestinian Authority forces in the West Bank; and deny 12 elected officials entry to Israel.
These include former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, Zarah Sultana, Fahad Ansari, director of Riverway to the Sea, Naz Shah, Diane Abbott MP, Hannah Spencer, Carla Denyer, Sian Berry, Ellie Chowns, John McDonnell, Richard Burgon, and Adrian Ramsay.
Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, said that Ben-Gvir and Smotrich’s history of offensive comments would likely mean these remarks were not “seen as serious” in and of themselves, but warned that they could not be wholly ignored.
“They (Gvir and Smotrich) are viewed with the sort of contempt that is necessary. It’s one of the many reasons that they are sanctioned,” Doyle told Arab News.
“But clearly, the concern will remain that somehow whatever they say could become official Israeli government policy, not least in an election cycle.”
Burcu Ozcelik, senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, told Arab News the real threat from Israel surrounded the potential that it could downgrade aspects of intelligence-sharing and defense cooperation with the UK.
Doing so, Ozcelik said, would prove “significant” and was “exactly why” she expected to see the UK go to great pains in the days and weeks ahead to “telegraph that the settlement trade ban is legally and diplomatically defensible because it is consistent with its recognition policy, but that the UK seeks to preserve substantial security and economic ties with Israel.”
However, according to observers who spoke to Arab News, the UK appears to have reached a point at which it is willing to take that gamble, with Doyle noting that after meeting with Miliband on Monday, he was convinced the ban was indicative of a broader structural shift.
“I’m quite convinced that Ed Miliband is genuine when he says that this will be a reset in relations with Israel,” said Doyle.
“It’s a phrase he’s used in public and repeated. So I think that imposing a ban on trade with settlements is certainly part of that. But I think that there needs to be other measures, and I expect that there will be.”
Concurring, Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian ambassador to the UK, described the decision as “long overdue,” writing on X that the sanctions marked a “turning point in UK-Palestine relations,” with Britain moving “from condemnation to consequences, from words to action.”
Protesters march through central London to oppose the war in Gaza. (AFP file)
Stressing that the development marked neither a “wholesale rupture with Israel” nor a “blanket trade ban” with Israel, Ozcelik said the Labour government was adding consistency to last September’s recognition of Palestine and the country’s “continued commitment to a two-state solution.”
“It is distinguishing between Israel’s legitimate security concerns, which the UK fully recognizes, and the settlement expansion in the West Bank, which the UK considers illegal under international law,” Ozcelik said.
“The UK government’s calculation is that if it recognizes a Palestinian state while taking no action against settlements that undermine the territorial viability of a future state, there is an obvious credibility gap. These measures need to be read as an attempt to give practical meaning to the UK’s support for a two-state solution.”
Ben-Gvir wants Israel to “publicly recognize that the Malvinas Islands (Falklands) are Argentine territory under occupation.” (AFP file)
Public support for a ban has been steadily climbing since a recommendation for one last July from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, with an August YouGov poll pointing to 50 percent support, with just 16 percent opposed, while Caabu research noted 246 MPs were in favor.
Trustee of the Britain Palestine Project, which seeks equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians, and former UK Consul-General to Jerusalem Sir Vincent Fean said that with “no peace process” and a “genocide in Gaza and apartheid, state-controlled settler violence and ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank,” action was necessary.
“This is a necessary reset of UK government policy, wholly consistent with UK recognition of the State of Palestine on Sept. 21, 2025, and respect for international law, which the Labour government came into office committed to uphold,” Fean told Arab News.
“It exerts UK leverage over Israeli illegal settlements for the first time. The UK has joined the international virtual consensus in condemning settlements as illegal, undermining prospects for peace. But nothing was done to stop them.
“With this policy step change, the UK is giving a lead to like-minded partners. The UK is not powerless in this regard.”
Noting that the UK move was “inevitable” amid a “deterioration of the security situation in the West Bank,” which followed the Israeli government overturning a 20-year settlement ban in Jenin, Yossi Mekelberg said he wanted to see words matched with action.
Settler violence has escalated in the West Bank since the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel triggered the war in Gaza. (AFP file)
“Taking measures against the trade with the settlements is one thing, but we also need to see a drive toward a two-state solution,” Mekelberg, a senior consulting fellow on the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House, told Arab News.
“Do you support the two-state solution on both sides? Do you support the process? If so, you need to fill it with content, with substance.”
Asked to provide a metric for measuring the ban’s success, Ozcelik said this would ultimately be measured in whether it deters implementation of the contentious E1 plan, which critics say will sever Palestinian territory in such a way that a contiguous state is no longer possible.
Breaking down Ed Sheeran’s tour debacle over Macklemore’s ‘Free Palestine’ comments
In a matter of days, Ed Sheeran has gone from the most agreeable, defiantly middle-of-the-road singer-songwriter on the pop charts to music’s newest villain. The Times’ August Brown and Mikael Wood gathered to break down what happened — and to figure out what it all means.
August Brown: To recap, Sheeran dropped his tour opener, the rapper Macklemore, after the MC described Israel’s actions in Gaza as a genocide and said “Free Palestine” onstage this month at two New Jersey dates of Sheeran’s ongoing stadium tour. Macklemore, in a statement, cited his long friendship with Sheeran while criticizing the singer for allegedly acquiescing to a demand from Robert Kraft, the owner of the NFL’s New England Patriots, that the rapper not be allowed to perform at the Patriots’ Gillette Stadium outside Boston due to his comments.
Kraft, a Trump-supporting billionaire with his own colorful history, released a statement about the tour, saying he was “ensuring that events held at our venue do not provide a platform for hate speech.”
But Sheeran, who performed at Kraft’s wedding in 2022, arguably made things much worse with his own comments on the decision to drop Macklemore from the tour, which ranged from shifting accountability (“Macklemore coming off tour was the promoter’s decision, it was not mine”) to promising that he held compassionate beliefs on this volatile issue but wouldn’t articulate them publicly (“I am not complicit. I have my personal views on this devastating conflict. Just because I choose not to speak publicly, it doesn’t mean I don’t have them, and it doesn’t mean I don’t care.”)
This prompted Sheeran’s remaining openers — including the musician and producer Finneas, the Danish rock combo Lukas Graham and singer-songwriter Aaron Rowe — to drop off the tour, each giving their plainspoken support for both Macklemore’s advocacy and the Palestinian people as their reasons for leaving. The traditional Irish group Beoga, which backs Sheeran for a portion of his nightly show, also quit the tour, saying it was responding to “the silencing of Macklemore by Zionist lobbies.”
It’s too soon to know how this will affect a CVS-core pop star like Sheeran, but it’s clear that for the first time in his career, he’s chosen the path of maximum conflict and controversy for little gain. What do you think he should he have done instead?
Macklemore
(Morgan Hancock / Getty Images)
Mikael Wood: Not let Macklemore be booted from his tour?
Look, I understand Sheeran’s position here: that he views himself as an artist whose audience comes to his show precisely because they’d like to avoid the messy realities of the world for two or three hours. We can choose a different day to discuss how tenable (or not) that position is here in the era of a reality-TV president who long ago blurred the line between politics and entertainment.
But setting aside one’s views on Israel and Palestine, it’s impossible for me to see how Sheeran ever thought his actions would be seen as anything other than allowing a fellow artist to be silenced — a clear loser in the eyes of both the left and the right.
It would be one thing if Macklemore’s comments in New Jersey truly resembled the hate speech that Kraft accused him of dispensing. (Many online have posted images of a costume the rapper wore onstage in 2014 that resembled an ugly Jewish caricature; Macklemore apologized at the time, saying he understood the criticism.)
And of course I get that the very idea of hate speech is slippery — one reason, perhaps, that the folks at AT&T Stadium near Dallas (where Sheeran is scheduled to perform next month) appear to have no problem hosting a concert in November by Ye, who not so long ago released a song called, uh, “Heil Hitler.”
But given how measured Macklemore’s comments were, Sheeran’s decision to go along with the demands for his removal feels less like a fulfillment of his desire to create a conflict-free zone and more like a capitulation to a rich and powerful friend.
August, what do you make of the various statements from the musicians who’ve opted to leave the tour in the wake of all this?
August Brown: The other openers had the most to lose here by bowing out of a huge tour. Yet they took unambiguous stances in favor of Macklemore’s Palestinian advocacy. (On Wednesday, the rapper said on Instagram that he planned to donate “the entire $1 million of my net earnings” from Sheeran’s tour to six organizations “working directly to support the Palestinian people.” He also invited Kraft to match his donation.)
“Artists must not be silenced when they speak up for the oppressed,” Finneas wrote. “I stand with Palestine and its people.”
Lukas Graham went even harder: “We should be able to speak about war, about civilians being killed, about children who deserve to grow up,” the group wrote. “Money doesn’t give you the right to own the conversation.”
Sheeran could have done what many fans regard as the right thing: Defy Kraft’s demands, cancel the Gillette Stadium dates with Macklemore and reroute the tour to somewhere that would support an opening act’s fairly anodyne support of a popular human rights cause. Sheeran is extremely wealthy, and he’d have been on the right side of history, if for no other reason than to say that billionaires shouldn’t have a veto over an artist’s human rights advocacy onstage.
I’m sympathetic to the idea that crews’ livelihoods and fans’ investment in the shows are meaningful things to toss out. But an artist as big as Sheeran can make up the difference. Even a hypothetical statement like “I stand for Macklemore’s freedom of speech and the rights of the Palestinian people. My team’s livelihoods depends on the shows happening, so I will play the Gillette dates as planned,” with a promise for a donation or a benefit show with Macklemore down the line — even that would have smoothed this over.
But his actions here — deflecting accountability, being vague yet defensive about his own politics — and his history with Kraft suggest his sympathies might not lie with the causes his opening acts stand for.
It’s interesting that Beoga and Aaron Rowe, both Irish acts, acknowledged their own country’s history of colonial occupation as reason to stand up for Palestinians (and free speech around it). “Ed has been a friend to me and has changed my life, I could never thank him enough for this,” Rowe wrote in his statement. “But as Irish people we know all too well about genocide, forced famine, and violent occupation.”
Even Lukas Graham cited the band’s roots in Christiania, a Danish enclave with a history as an anarchist commune, as an example they’re following by bailing on this tour. Sheeran likes to say that, through his father, he is culturally Irish though he was born and raised in England. In a country that rallied for Kneecap, the Irish rap group and advocates for Palestinians, his reputation is likely taking a real hit. Whether that extends to his ultra-mainstream U.S. fan base remains to be seen.
Not every artist is obliged to comment on contentious issues — though the success of Olivia Rodrigo’s Daisy Chain Fields festival, which raised money for an array of abortion-rights advocacy groups, showed that A-listers can speak out when they want to. But whatever he actually believes, Sheeran’s long-cultivated neutrality is in tatters. Taking a stand would have been the path of least resistance. Instead, he committed the most basic onstage error: a failure to read the room.
Source link
Arab News | Breaking point? UK slammed as ‘antisemitic’ as Israel calls for shutting down consulate
Sanctions announced by the British government on Tuesday targeting West Bank settlements have upended the UK’s decades-long balancing act and provoked furious condemnation from the Israeli government that has all but severed relations between the two.
Coming a year on from recognizing Palestinian statehood, the Labour-led UK government confirmed it was tightening restrictions on arms exports to Israel and was placing bans on the import of all goods from settlements and on some services, including construction, financing, infrastructure, real estate, and settlement advertising.
Addressing Parliament, Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, who is of Jewish heritage and lost multiple members of his family during the Holocaust, labeled the settlers “terrorists” who had received tacit support for their practices by an Israeli government.
“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 added.
The move marks part of a broader international pushback on settlement activity, with Canada and France also announcing on Tuesday they would join Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the UK in enacting bans.
Against a backdrop of looming Israeli elections, questions are now being asked: Does the news out of London mark a long-term structural shift in its relationship with Israel, or is it part of a coordinated effort to put pressure on the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ahead of elections in late October?
In Israel, early political response was definitive, with National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir leaning into a global call by right-wing governments as he urged the country to “publicly recognize that the Malvinas Islands (Falklands) are Argentine territory under occupation.”
He added: “The British are not content with merely occupying the territory; they also carry out oil drilling there and steal money from the Argentine people.”
Israel’s Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, meanwhile, claimed “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.”
Addressing the media shortly after Miliband’s announcement, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar stated plainly that the UK was engaging in election interference as he warned that the Israeli population “emphatically” rejected Palestinian statehood.
Announcing countermeasures, Saar said Israel would close the British Consulate in Jerusalem; remove British representatives from the International Gaza Support Center in Kiryat Gat in southern Israel; terminate the UK’s role in training Palestinian Authority forces in the West Bank; and deny 12 elected officials entry to Israel.
These include former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, Zarah Sultana, Fahad Ansari, director of Riverway to the Sea, Naz Shah, Diane Abbott MP, Hannah Spencer, Carla Denyer, Sian Berry, Ellie Chowns, John McDonnell, Richard Burgon, and Adrian Ramsay.
Chris Doyle, director of the Council for Arab-British Understanding, said that Ben-Gvir and Smotrich’s history of offensive comments would likely mean these remarks were not “seen as serious” in and of themselves, but warned that they could not be wholly ignored.
“They (Gvir and Smotrich) are viewed with the sort of contempt that is necessary. It’s one of the many reasons that they are sanctioned,” Doyle told Arab News.
“But clearly, the concern will remain that somehow whatever they say could become official Israeli government policy, not least in an election cycle.”
Burcu Ozcelik, senior research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, told Arab News the real threat from Israel surrounded the potential that it could downgrade aspects of intelligence-sharing and defense cooperation with the UK.
Doing so, Ozcelik said, would prove “significant” and was “exactly why” she expected to see the UK go to great pains in the days and weeks ahead to “telegraph that the settlement trade ban is legally and diplomatically defensible because it is consistent with its recognition policy, but that the UK seeks to preserve substantial security and economic ties with Israel.”
However, according to observers who spoke to Arab News, the UK appears to have reached a point at which it is willing to take that gamble, with Doyle noting that after meeting with Miliband on Monday, he was convinced the ban was indicative of a broader structural shift.
“I’m quite convinced that Ed Miliband is genuine when he says that this will be a reset in relations with Israel,” said Doyle.
“It’s a phrase he’s used in public and repeated. So I think that imposing a ban on trade with settlements is certainly part of that. But I think that there needs to be other measures, and I expect that there will be.”
Concurring, Husam Zomlot, the Palestinian ambassador to the UK, described the decision as “long overdue,” writing on X that the sanctions marked a “turning point in UK-Palestine relations,” with Britain moving “from condemnation to consequences, from words to action.”
Stressing that the development marked neither a “wholesale rupture with Israel” nor a “blanket trade ban” with Israel, Ozcelik said the Labour government was adding consistency to last September’s recognition of Palestine and the country’s “continued commitment to a two-state solution.”
“It is distinguishing between Israel’s legitimate security concerns, which the UK fully recognizes, and the settlement expansion in the West Bank, which the UK considers illegal under international law,” Ozcelik said.
“The UK government’s calculation is that if it recognizes a Palestinian state while taking no action against settlements that undermine the territorial viability of a future state, there is an obvious credibility gap. These measures need to be read as an attempt to give practical meaning to the UK’s support for a two-state solution.”
Public support for a ban has been steadily climbing since a recommendation for one last July from the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, with an August YouGov poll pointing to 50 percent support, with just 16 percent opposed, while Caabu research noted 246 MPs were in favor.
Trustee of the Britain Palestine Project, which seeks equal rights for Israelis and Palestinians, and former UK Consul-General to Jerusalem Sir Vincent Fean said that with “no peace process” and a “genocide in Gaza and apartheid, state-controlled settler violence and ethnic cleansing in East Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank,” action was necessary.
“This is a necessary reset of UK government policy, wholly consistent with UK recognition of the State of Palestine on Sept. 21, 2025, and respect for international law, which the Labour government came into office committed to uphold,” Fean told Arab News.
“It exerts UK leverage over Israeli illegal settlements for the first time. The UK has joined the international virtual consensus in condemning settlements as illegal, undermining prospects for peace. But nothing was done to stop them.
“With this policy step change, the UK is giving a lead to like-minded partners. The UK is not powerless in this regard.”
Noting that the UK move was “inevitable” amid a “deterioration of the security situation in the West Bank,” which followed the Israeli government overturning a 20-year settlement ban in Jenin, Yossi Mekelberg said he wanted to see words matched with action.
“Taking measures against the trade with the settlements is one thing, but we also need to see a drive toward a two-state solution,” Mekelberg, a senior consulting fellow on the Middle East and North Africa program at Chatham House, told Arab News.
“Do you support the two-state solution on both sides? Do you support the process? If so, you need to fill it with content, with substance.”
Asked to provide a metric for measuring the ban’s success, Ozcelik said this would ultimately be measured in whether it deters implementation of the contentious E1 plan, which critics say will sever Palestinian territory in such a way that a contiguous state is no longer possible.
Source link