Playing politics with security: Jerusalem must review UK privileges amidst sanctions - editorial

Britain and Israel have genuine strategic interests in common even when their governments disagree sharply, but diplomatic relations require reciprocity.

Political signals have consequences.

London has already imposed sanctions on Israeli ministers, restricted arms exports, suspended trade negotiations, and recognized a Palestinian state. The settlement ban adds another layer to a relationship that Britain simultaneously insists remains strategically important.

That contradiction was unusually visible on Tuesday. British ministers stressed that Israel remains an important security partner and that intelligence and security cooperation should continue. Miliband himself emphasized Britain’s continuing relationship with Israel even as he announced the new policy.

Yet only a day earlier, UN special rapporteur Francesca Albanese called on Britain to go considerably further and progressively suspend intelligence cooperation with Israel.

Britain should reject that suggestion unequivocally. Israeli intelligence has helped protect British lives. The most striking known example came in 2015, when MI5 uncovered roughly three and a half tons of ammonium nitrate stored by Hezbollah in northwest London. Israeli officials later said the Mossad had provided the intelligence that led British authorities to the cache.

Intel cooperation usually not publicly visible, but entirely vital

For years, the British public knew almost nothing about the operation. An Intelligence and Security Committee report finally disclosed details in 2025, describing Hezbollah’s stockpile as a contingency for a possible future attack.

Such cooperation is rarely visible precisely because intelligence relationships are supposed to remain quiet.

Tuesday supplied another reminder of why the partnership matters. On the same day Britain announced its measures against settlements, it introduced tougher sanctions against Iran, expanding financial, trade, and aviation restrictions designed to constrain Tehran’s nuclear program and hostile activities.

Iran threatens Israel directly. It has also plotted against dissidents and Jewish targets on European soil, supported Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations, and repeatedly challenged Western interests.

Britain and Israel therefore have genuine strategic interests in common even when their governments disagree sharply.

UK should feel consequences of its decisions

Israel should respond to the settlement ban. Diplomatic relations require reciprocity, and London cannot assume that it will absorb each new punitive measure without consequence. Jerusalem can review discretionary British access and privileges, reconsider aspects of diplomatic cooperation and make clear that partnership works in both directions.

Calls to dismantle intelligence cooperation, however, would be a mistake.

The information exchanged between British and Israeli agencies does not belong to Ed Miliband, Benjamin Netanyahu, or any particular government. It exists to prevent terrorist attacks, disrupt Iranian operations, and protect citizens.

There is also a message here for London.

Britain cannot continually narrow its political relationship with Israel while assuming that the most valuable elements of the strategic relationship exist on autopilot. Allies can disagree, sometimes bitterly. They also have to recognize what they stand to lose when disagreement becomes a systematic downgrading of the relationship.

Britain has chosen a “reset.” It should make certain that, in trying to punish Israel over the West Bank, it does not weaken an alliance that has helped keep British citizens safe.