The former leader of Britain’s opposition Labour Party Ed Miliband walks from Parliament to St Margaret’s Church for a service of remembrance for Labour MP Jo Cox who was assassinated outside her constituency surgery in Westminster, London, June 20, 2016. Photo: REUTERS/Toby Melville.

When UK Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband announced a “comprehensive reset” of the UK’s approach on Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the decision came amid growing international attention over the zoning tender for the E1 area of the West Bank, which moved forward a long-delayed plan for construction between Jerusalem and Ma’ale Adumim. Among the measures the UK is looking to impose is implementing a ban on trade in goods produced in Israeli settlements.

The international community, and the activists who call themselves pro-Palestinian, celebrated the potential of the new policies to supposedly disrupt the process of building on E1 and, in turn, advance the prospects of a two-state solution.

The question of who these new measures would actually help or harm has been almost entirely left out of the picture. Such blanket bans on trade with Israeli settlements could have consequences extending well beyond the settlements themselves.

Within Israel, products are not explicitly labeled as to whether they are sourced from the West Bank or a community elsewhere in Israel, meaning that blanket restrictions on goods specifically produced in settlements are almost impossible to execute. A product manufactured in an Israeli settlement can enter the same domestic supply chains as a product manufactured elsewhere in Israel, with both ultimately being exported through the same ports, distributors, and retailers.

Some products have warehouses or offices in both the West Bank and within Israel’s internationally recognized borders, making the process all the more complicated. In this case, boycotting an office or warehouse exclusively in the West Bank cannot be implemented without impacting the second office elsewhere in Israel.

In practice, this might mean Israel in its entirety could be subject to UK trade restrictions, as neither Israel nor the UK would be identifying which products come from where.

Beyond the challenges of singling out goods from the West Bank for boycott, it is impossible to ignore who would be negatively impacted by such a trade ban. Prior to Oct. 7, 2023, roughly 165,000 Palestinians worked in Israel and the West Bank. While that number has decreased in the years following, a trade ban would have significant potential negative ramifications on Palestinian workers.

This isn’t purely theoretical. When, in 2014, SodaStream was boycotted for the location of its manufacturing plant in the community of Ma’ale Adumim in the West Bank, the vast majority of those impacted were Palestinian employees. After the production plant was moved to the Negev desert following international pressure, 500 Palestinian workers lost their jobs – jobs which provide higher wages than average in the West Bank alongside employment benefits.

But the potential consequences do not end within the borders of Israel. A settlement trade ban could also have implications for British Jews, particularly if restrictions on settlement goods contribute to a broader environment in which Israeli products, businesses, or institutions become increasingly subject to boycotts.

The JLC is deeply concerned by reports that the government is preparing to announce measures to prohibit or restrict trade with Israeli settlements. Throughout the summer, we have urged the government to avoid irreversible steps that could further damage the UK’s relationship…

— Jewish Leadership Council (@JLC_uk) August 30, 2026

The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council warned that such a boycott could further damage UK-Israel relations and risk creating an even more hostile environment towards British Jews.

If a ban on trade in Israeli settlements goes through, the consequences will undoubtedly be far-reaching. From impacting the very people that the ban is supposedly meant to help, to hurting Jews outside of Israel, the ban would prove to do more harm than good.

These results are not difficult to foresee, making the decision to pursue it driven by policies of activism and double standards. A policy this disingenuous doesn’t advance peace, but it does advance the warped anti-Israel hatred that has too frequently presented itself as genuine concern for Palestinian rights.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.