On 9 July 2026, a debate on the banning of illegal Israeli settlement trade took place in the House of Commons. It was secured by Abtisam Mohamed MP, Vice-Chair of the Britain-Palestine All Party Parliamentary Group, and one of the two MPs who were denied entry to Israel on a Caabu and Medical Aid for Palestinians parliamentary delegation in April 2025. The debate can be read in full here, and watched in full here (beginning at 14:34).
It was attended by Members of Parliament from across most major parties, including Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, the Green Party, SNP, and Plaid Cymru, who argued that it was time for the UK to finally implement a settlement trade ban – something, that some argued, should have been done decades ago. Caabu worked out that 238 UK Parliamentarians support and have called for such a ban. As recent Caabu polling has indicated that 48% of the British public believe that there should be such a ban. This rises to 62% of Labour voters.
In response, the UK government has said it was considering and laid out what it could do, with Chris Bryant MP, the Minister for Trade, responding. His responses are laid out below.
The UK Government at bare minimum, must issue a ban on trade and services with illegal Israeli settlement. Consideration is not enough, and it must act.
It was noted that Spain and Ireland have now implemented a ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements, while Belgium and the Netherlands are finalising such a ban. Caabu supported MPs with preparations for this debate, through regular engagement with our parliamentary partners, organising briefings on the settlement enterprise and its illegality, as well as previously taking out many of the MPs who contributed in this debate on parliamentary delegations toPalestine.
Caabu organised a meeting for the Britain-Palestine All Party Parliamentary Group on how the UK can learn from settlement trade bans being implemented in the Netherlands, Belgium, Ireland and Spain. This can be watched here.
Abtisam Mohamed MP, who secured the debate, powerfully reminded the house that “two children born in the same land: one is born in an Israeli settlement; the other is born in a Palestinian community...They may be separated by only a few miles, but they will grow up under entirely different systems. One will enjoy unrestricted freedom of movement, infrastructure investment, dependable access to healthcare, free-flowing water, the right to be educated, legal protections and state support. The other may face military restrictions, checkpoints, demolitions, land seizures and profound uncertainty about their future... one will grow up benefiting from a system of privilege while the other experiences the consequences of occupation. These two children will be governed by two different sets of laws, one civilian and one military...How is it possible that two children can have such different experiences, yet still there is denial that it is apartheid?”
She continued “Complexity is not an excuse to hide from our international obligations. In fact, the complexity is why a ban is needed. Settlement goods are routinely mislabelled, mixed into supply chains and rerouted to obscure their origin. According to a major Global Echo study, 17% of Israeli goods that are either sold, supplied or advertised in the UK are actually from illegal settlements... the differentiation system we depend on does not stop the goods entering this country; it only allows us to slap a tariff charge on them. Those tariff charges actually mean nothing because the Israeli Government offer incentives to settlers. They give out millions in grants to companies to cover the costs of doing business from an illegal settlement... the International Court of Justice’s advisory opinion of July 2024 includes an obligation not to aid or assist the illegal occupation, and to take steps to prevent trade and investment relations that sustain it.”
Her speech can be watched in full here:
The government response shows some positive steps being considered, with Chris Bryant MP, the Minister for Trade, saying that they will look at the four steps below.
“As I have said, the settlements are illegal. There is therefore a legal obligation on us as a Government not to aid or assist the occupation. The immediate corollary of that is that we need to stop UK businesses providing economic support and legitimacy to illegal settlements. Of course, we want to design measures to stop trade with settlements in a way that balances that with enabling British businesses and citizens to benefit from a strong trading relationship with Israel and with Palestine. That is one of the tricks we have to pull off.”
“There are four key things that we could do and are seriously considering.”
“First, we could ban imports to the UK of goods from the illegal settlements. I think all UK consumers would want us to do this effectively, and lots of supermarkets and other chains have been looking to do it in their own way. The challenge is—and this is not an excuse, to respond to the question from the right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse); it is just a fact—that there is no properly verifiable means of determining the real source. [Interruption.] No, if the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to make the argument, he can criticise me afterwards if he wants to. This situation is very different from Ukraine, because in Ukraine there is a verifiable process to determine whether something is from occupied Crimea or from Ukraine. That is a significant difference. This is not an insurmountable difficulty, but it is a challenge.”
“The second thing we could do and are seriously considering is banning exports of UK goods to the illegal settlements. Members have talked, for instance, of banning the sale of UK machinery. The hon. Member for Witney (Charlie Maynard), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, referred to one particular company. Here, too, the challenge is that goods move in and out very freely between the illegal settlements and green-line Israel, and that poses a challenge for us. It is not insurmountable, but it is a challenge.”
“The third thing we could do and are seriously considering is banning exports of UK services to the illegal settlements. To my mind, it must be completely wrong for a UK business to enable the construction of a block of flats or a road, for instance, in the settlements, by providing finance, insurance, architectural services, logistical support or, as has been referred to in the debate, selling properties in the illegal settlements. All of that is a perfectly legitimate area where we should consider banning exports of UK services to the settlements.”
“Likewise, the fourth area we are considering taking action on is banning imports to the UK of services from the settlements.”
While it is welcome that the government seems to be seriously considering these necessary steps, the time for consideration is over and the time for meaningful action is now.
Other speeches from Parliamentarians in the debate can be found below:
