What Has Britain Sanctioned Over Israel and the West Bank?

1. What Britain has done

On 8 September 2026, the UK Government sanctioned five named people and announced plans to restrict commerce linked to Israeli settlements in the West Bank. ^{[1] [8]}

The distinction is important: the sanctions against individuals took effect under Britain’s existing Global Human Rights regime. The wider restrictions, covering settlement goods, property promotion and commercial support, were still plans requiring legislation or new powers as of 12 September. ^{[1] [5] [8]}

To understand the package, start with what happens when Britain sanctions a person. Then comes the bigger question: why extend the response to settlement-related business?

2. The five people and their restrictions

The five people were Ben-Zion Gopstein, Meir Mordechai Ettinger, Eliav Libi, Baruch Marzel and Avichai Suissa. Each received an asset freeze, a travel ban and a director-disqualification sanction. ^{[8] [9]}

An asset freeze blocks dealings with the person’s funds or economic resources. It also generally prevents others from making funds or resources available to them, or for their benefit. ^[2]

Think of money held in an account covered by UK sanctions. Freezing it means blocking its use, not transferring ownership to the Government. The money remains the owner’s, but cannot generally be moved or used. The restriction also reaches beyond money already held: providing further resources for the sanctioned person’s benefit can be prohibited too. ^[2]

The travel ban is an immigration restriction on entering the UK. The director sanction bars the person from directing or managing UK-connected companies, unless an exception or licence applies. ^{[3] [4]}

Why these five? The Government said they had supported, incited or carried out violent attacks against Palestinians, including communities in the West Bank. That is its published explanation for the group, rather than a separate account of each person’s alleged conduct. ^[1]

These are executive sanctions, using a reasonable-grounds-to-suspect test. They are not criminal convictions. ^{[8] [9]}

3. Why settlements are central

The settlement focus rests on a wider territorial question: what land would a future Palestinian state have, and could it function alongside Israel?

The UK and international institutions describe the West Bank as occupied Palestinian territory. UN Security Council Resolution 2334 says Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 have no legal validity. In July 2024, the International Court of Justice concluded that Israel’s continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory was unlawful. That was an advisory opinion, not a binding judgment between litigating states. Israel describes the West Bank as disputed rather than occupied territory. ^{[5] [6] [7]}

The British Government linked its September package to settler violence and accelerating settlement expansion, which it said threatened a viable two-state solution. ^[1]

Its concrete example was the E1 settlement development. The Government said tenders for construction had been permitted to go ahead and that, as planned, the development would cut through the heart of the West Bank. Israel’s Foreign Minister rejected the claim that E1 would sever Palestinian territorial continuity. ^{[1] [5]}

Britain’s concern was therefore about more than the number of new homes. It was about how settlement expansion could shape the territory available for a future Palestinian state. In the Government’s account, protecting the possibility of two states requires addressing both violence against Palestinian communities and the expansion of settlements. ^{[1] [5]}

4. Why the plans reach into commerce

That explains the move from named individuals to economic activity. The proposed measures would reach goods produced in settlements, the marketing of settlement property, and people or companies supporting settlement activity. ^{[1] [5]}

There were three main elements. First, a planned ban on importing goods from settlements the Government describes as illegal. Second, a planned ban on UK advertising or promotion of land and property in those settlements. Third, new powers to target people and companies supporting, facilitating or profiting from settlement activity, including through services. ^{[1] [5]}

The organising principle is the connection to settlements: where goods come from, what property is being promoted, or what activity a business supports. The proposed powers would therefore go beyond identifying people whom the Government links to violence. ^{[1] [5]}

As of 12 September, these wider measures were not yet an operating settlement-commerce regime. The Commons Library reported an intended legislative timetable of six to nine months. ^[5]

So Britain’s answer has two parts: immediate restrictions on five people, and a proposed economic response to settlement activity. The Government’s stated aim is to confront violence and expansion that threaten a two-state solution. The package is settlement-focused, not a general embargo on Israel. ^{[1] [5] [8]}