It is entirely legitimate, and necessary, to disagree with the British Government’s latest measures concerning Israeli settlements. We can question their proportionality, challenge whether similar standards are applied consistently to other conflicts around the world, and firmly reject some of the language that has accompanied them.
Israel has also responded. Measures have already been announced, including the closure of the British Consulate in East Jerusalem and the exclusion of Britain from certain mechanisms relating to Gaza.
My message is a simple one: Israel has responded and now it is time to lower the temperature.
I was born in Britain, served as President of the Israel-Britain Chamber of Commerce and today serve as its honorary president. Having been involved in relations between the two countries for many years, I am less concerned by the fact that a serious disagreement exists than by the danger that we allow it to develop into a wider and unnecessary confrontation.
Britain is not Israel’s enemy. It is a longstanding friend and important ally.
It is one of the world’s most influential democracies, a permanent member of the UN Security Council with veto power, and an important economic partner. Bilateral trade in goods and services is worth approximately £6 billion annually. Our relationship extends well beyond trade to security, intelligence, science, technology, cyber, medicine and research.
These are not relationships that should be placed at risk lightly.
Nor is the strategic relationship one-sided. Israel has become a global leader in areas including air and missile defence, cyber security, intelligence and advanced defence technologies. At a time when Britain and Europe are investing heavily in strengthening their defence capabilities, Israeli technology and experience have considerable relevance.
Britain and Israel are not doing each other favours as this is a relationship built on substantial mutual interests.
There are legitimate criticisms to be made of current British policy. Israel is entitled to ask why standards applied to it do not always appear to be applied with equal consistency elsewhere. It is entitled to challenge British policy diplomatically and politically.
But there is a considerable difference between robust disagreement and breaking the relationship.
Britain’s present government was democratically elected and is entitled to determine its foreign policy, just as Israel’s government is entitled to oppose it. Governments change, policies change but the long-term interests between nations endure.
It is also important to recognise that, even in the present dispute, the British government continues to distinguish between Israeli settlements and the State of Israel itself. It has stated that its measures are not directed against Israel, reiterated its opposition to BDS and expressed its intention to maintain and develop trade with Israel. Intelligence cooperation between the two countries also continues.
Restraint, however, must work both ways. I would equally urge the British Government to step back from further escalation, both in its rhetoric and in the measures it is now contemplating. If the stated intention is to target settlements rather than Israel itself, serious questions remain about where that distinction will ultimately be drawn. Would, for example, commerce with Jewish businesses in Jerusalem’s Old City be affected?
Britain should also consider the potential boomerang effect of widening economic measures. Britain and Israel are closely interconnected in fields including technology, cyber security, pharmaceuticals and medical research, with Israeli companies playing an important role in the supply of medicines to the British market. Measures intended to exert pressure on Israel could therefore have unintended consequences for British businesses and consumers as well. Restraint is required in London as well as Jerusalem.
Israel has no interest in erasing that distinction itself and allowing a dispute concerning the settlements to become a confrontation with Britain as a whole.
We in Israel should also be willing to look inward. Violence by extremist settlers, attacks on Palestinians and their property, and provocative statements or actions by Israeli public figures do not help Israel’s case. They make it considerably harder for Israel’s friends in Britain and elsewhere in Europe to stand up for it.
That is not a statement of left or right. I have no intention of entering either Israeli or British party politics. It is simply a matter of recognising the international consequences of our actions and protecting Israel’s national interests.
Israel has enough real enemies and enough genuine fronts. We should not create new adversaries from among our friends.
We can disagree with Britain forcefully – we can protest, apply diplomatic pressure and demand consistency and proportionality – but we should know when to stop.
Further escalation is not necessarily a demonstration of strength. Sometimes diplomatic strength lies in responding, drawing a line, and then leaving the door open.
Britain and Israel will disagree again, just as they have disagreed in the past. But the interests that bind our countries are far greater and more enduring than the dispute before us today.
Len Judes is honorary president of the Israel-Britain Chamber of Commerce
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.