UK must end all trade with Israel, says co-founder of BDS movement
Co-Founder of BDS Movement Demands Britain Sever Every Commercial Tie with Israel
Wanderstayfinder.com – Omar Barghouti, the Palestinian academic and activist who helped launch the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions campaign more than two decades ago, has called on London to go far beyond the limited trade restrictions currently under discussion and terminate all commercial, academic, and diplomatic exchanges with Israel. Speaking publicly on 2 September 2026, Barghouti argued that Britain's binding duties under international law — specifically its obligation to prevent genocide and to cease supporting an occupation deemed illegal by the world's top court — demand a complete withdrawal of economic engagement, not incremental sanctions aimed at individual ministers or settler enterprises.
What London Is Actually Preparing
The British foreign secretary, Ed Miliband, announced on Tuesday that the government will present a "comprehensive reset" of its Israel policy within weeks. According to reporting on the Commons debate, ministers are drafting legislation to prohibit trade with the illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank. Miliband told parliament the administration is examining mechanisms to prevent British firms from "financing, constructing or advertising new settlements." The timing is acute: tenders for new settlement construction are expected to be issued days before Israel's parliamentary elections on 27 October, a window critics say could lock in irreversible changes to the territory's geography.
The most contentious project in that pipeline is the so-called E1 corridor, a belt of roughly 3,400 planned housing units that would slice through the centre of the West Bank. Miliband labelled the scheme "unacceptable and destructive," noting that opponents contend its completion would make a contiguous Palestinian state — and therefore any two-state arrangement — unworkable.
Why Barghouti Calls Partial Measures a Distraction
Barghouti dismissed the prospect of targeted sanctions against extremist cabinet members or specific settler organisations as what he termed a
"smoke and mirrors cop-out and distraction" from the UK's legal obligation under international law to end all support for Israel, including arms exports, trade deals and academic relations that "may directly or indirectly enable Israel's illegal occupation" of Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
His argument rests on two landmark rulings by the International Court of Justice. In July 2024, the ICJ declared that Israel's entire occupation of Gaza, the West Bank, and East Jerusalem is unlawful and constitutes a breach of the international prohibitions on racial segregation and apartheid. In January 2024, the same court found a "plausible case" that Israel had violated the Genocide Convention with respect to Palestinians, and determined that the risk of genocide was sufficient to activate the prevention duties owed by third states.
Barghouti stressed that dozens of UN human-rights experts have outlined a minimum compliance package: a full military embargo covering exports, imports, dual-use transfers, and transit; plus the termination of every trade, diplomatic, economic, and academic relationship that sustains the occupation.
"The genocide convention is very clear – where there is a risk, the obligation to prevent is triggered, and how do you prevent a genocide? You stop enabling it. You end all forms of complicity."
He accused UK government lawyers of selectively reading the January 2024 judgment, insisting the court had not "ruled on genocide" while ignoring the operative language on prevention duties.
Reactions from British Jewish Communities
The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council have cautioned Miliband that a blanket ban on settlement trade could intensify antisemitic sentiment domestically. A third body, Yachad, met separately with the foreign secretary to voice "the growing concerns of many British Jews about the entrenchment of occupation and effective annexation of the West Bank." The split among British Jewish organisations underscores how the settlement question has become a fault line within the community itself, with some groups prioritising diplomatic engagement and others pressing for sharper economic leverage.
Jerusalem's Warning
The Israeli embassy pointed to remarks by Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar, who warned that any British action perceived as hostile would be met with reciprocal measures.
"If Britain acts against the state of Israel, the state of Israel will act against Britain. We have the tools."
Sa'ar added that the era in which Israel would absorb pressure without responding was over, a statement that signals the diplomatic friction likely to accompany any escalation in London's posture.
The BDS Framework and Its Limits
Asked whether the movement's economic pressure campaign is designed to alter Israeli public opinion, Barghouti insisted the measures must remain grounded in law and ethics. He clarified that sanctions should target the specific entities and individuals responsible for international crimes, functioning as instruments of accountability rather than blanket consumer boycotts.
"They are actually measures of accountability, not sanctions that simply say settlers shall not have vacations in London."
He also noted that Israel's de facto annexation of occupied Palestinian territory makes it nearly impossible to distinguish "settlement goods and services" from the wider economy, which he said renders piecemeal trade restrictions "totally performative" and devoid of concrete effect in compelling compliance with international law.
The broader implication for British policy is stark: if the ICJ's findings are taken at face value, the gap between what London is prepared to do — restrict settlement commerce, perhaps tighten arms sales — and what Barghouti and the court's advisory opinions describe as legally required — a wholesale cessation of enabling relationships — will define the next phase of UK–Israel relations. With Israeli elections approaching and settlement tenders imminent, the window for diplomatic manoeuvre is narrowing, and the question of whether Britain will treat its international-law obligations as aspirational or binding is set to become a defining test of its post-Brexit foreign-policy identity.
Related Reading
Frequently Asked Questions
What is UK must end all trade?UK must end all trade is the main topic of this guide. The article explains the context, practical details, and next steps readers should understand.
Why does UK must end all trade matter?UK must end all trade matters because readers are looking for a useful answer, not just a short summary. Good content should match search intent and help them decide what to do next.