The fact that Israel is taking action against Britain is not merely a one-off diplomatic disagreement. It is part of a long-standing and foreseeable pattern: whenever anyone criticises Israel they receive a retaliatory response. Whether the critic is a government, a journalist, a human rights organisation or a celebrity makes no difference. As soon as someone goes against Israel, the country responds not with argument or with evidence but with punishment.
Britain had prohibited the import of settlers and had used the term “ethnic cleansing” to describe the situation in the West Bank is no radical thing; that expression has in fact been employed for years by human rights organisations, UN experts and legal scholars. But when a major Western government used it, it broke the silence and ended the taboo. And Israel has always reacted in this way by trying to make the critic pay.
The UK consulate in Jerusalem has been located there since 1838 and thus predates the state of Israel by over a hundred years; it has survived the Ottoman period, the British Mandate, Jordanian rule and all the various stages of Israeli administration. Israel now wishes for it to be closed — not since the building poses a threat, not because of security considerations, not because of any policy reason. The reason Israel wants it closed is that Britain dared to speak plainly.
That is the way in which Israel functions. It does not respond to allegations with facts. It does not address the actual issues. Instead, it moves directly to intimidation, then to erasure, and then to consequences.
On the publication of its report on apartheid, Israel did not challenge the findings but instead launched an attack on Amnesty, banned its staff, and sought to undermine the organisation. The Israeli foreign ministry described Amnesty’s report as “a collection of lies” and then urged European governments to break relations with the group; it also attempted to prevent Amnesty’s director in Israel from travelling.
When Human Rights Watch published its own report on apartheid, Israel expelled HRW’s director, Omar Shakir, completely from the country—for the first time in the organisation’s history has a government physically removed a senior researcher for having documented abuses. Israel did not challenge the evidence; it just got rid of him.
When the ICC started to look into war crimes, Israel neither co-operated nor defended its actions. The country described the Court as antisemitic, urged its allies to prevent funding from going through, and even threatened ICC officials with personal sanctions. The Israeli government publicly said that the ICC judges were “targeting Jews”, a move intended at stopping the investigation before it could get under way.
When the UN agencies recorded cases of civilians being killed, Israel never dealt with the evidence. Instead, it attacked the UN, disgraced the investigators, and attempted to close off the channels for reporting. Israel repeatedly refused entry to the UN Special Rapporteurs, such as Michael Lynk and Francesca Albanese, which meant that they were unable to carry out on-the-ground investigations.
When journalists were reporting from Gaza, Israel referred to them as terrorists, took away their credentials, or attacked their offices. During the 2021 attack on Gaza, Israel carried out bombing raids on both the AP and Al Jazeera buildings, stating — although providing no evidence — that Hamas was within them. In 2022, when Shireen Abu Akleh was killed, Israel first put the blame on the Palestinians, then blamed her, and afterwards criticised media organisations for being ‘biased’, rather than acknowledging the fact that she had been shot even though she was clearly identifiable as a member of the press.
Those are not the only instances either. Israel has a well-documented history of retaliating against journalists: Gideon Levy has suffered physical attacks and threats because of his reporting on civilian deaths in Gaza; Al Jazeera has had its offices closed down and its equipment seized; and Middle East Eye reporters have been prevented from entering and have been described as “hostile actors”.
Whenever celebrities took a stand, Israel brought in lobbying groups, public relations firms, and exercised political pressure in an attempt to have them silenced. Following Bella Hadid’s posting on Palestinian rights, Israeli authorities publicly charged her with “advocating genocide”, and pro-Israel organisations started campaigns urging companies to withdraw their support from her. When Natalie Portman declined to attend an Israeli award ceremony, the minister of culture in Israel accused her of “falling into the hands of BDS”. After The Weeknd donated two million dollars to Gaza relief, Israeli lobbying groups asked his management to “clarify” their position. Roger Waters was described as a “Jew-hater”, venues were pressured to cancel his concerts, and governments were lobbied to ban him. Zayn Malik also came under coordinated smear campaigns alleging that he was “supporting extremism” after he posted about Gaza.
Governments also suffer in return. When Spain recognised Palestine in 2024, Israel prevented Spanish humanitarian workers from entering Gaza and launched a public attack on Spain’s foreign minister. Ireland criticised Israel’s bombing of Rafah, whereupon Israel recalled its ambassador and threatened to “reassess relations”. South Africa brought the genocide case before the ICJ and as a result Israel severed diplomatic ties and accused the whole government of supporting terrorism. Having condemned Israel’s bombing of Gaza in 2014, Brazil was mocked by Israel, who referred to Brazil’s military as “a diplomatic dwarf”. Norway’s support of a women’s centre named after a Palestinian figure led Israel to freeze cooperation agreements and urge Norway to withdraw its funding.
Even Israeli academics can come under retaliatory measures. Neve Gordon was the subject of pressure from politicians who wanted him dismissed for having written on the subject of apartheid. Ilan Pappé was expelled altogether from Israeli academia after he had recorded the 1948 expulsions. Israel has prevented access to its archives, reclassified documents, and threatened to take legal action against historians who question the official version of events.
Neither technology companies nor corporations have escaped such treatment. When Ben & Jerry’s ceased selling ice cream as a result of the settlements, Israel threatened to take legal action, pressured Unilever, the parent company, and encouraged the various U.S. states to finanically penalise the brand. Meta came under pressure to censor content relating to Palestine, and when internal reports revealed this, Israel targeted the researchers rather than responding to the findings.
The United Nations organisations come under constant retaliation. Israel has severed its connections with the UN Human Rights Council, refused to allow investigators entry and induced its allies to withdraw funding from the council. It labelled the commissioners on the UN Commission of Inquiry as ‘antisemitic’ and has made an attempt to halt the entire inquiry. Moreover, Israel has threatened diplomatic retaliation against members of the UN Security Council who vote in favour of ceasefire resolutions.
Retaliation specific to Gaza goes on continuously. Journalists who are recording the famine are accused of “lying for Hamas”. Aid groups which are reporting cases of starvation have their permits taken away and their trucks prevented from moving. Doctors who talk about hospital bombings are labelled as “propagandists”, their hospitals are then attacked, and international medical organisations are put under pressure to silence them.
It is a reflexive act of retaliation, used as a shield, and serves as a warning to all others: “If you criticise us, we’ll make you regret it.”
This action taken against Britain is merely the most recent instance, but it has been more conspicuous since Britain is a major Western government, a long-time ally and a country which generally avoids coming to confrontation with Israel. Instead of expressing a diplomatic disagreement, Israel responded with a threat to wipe out a consulate that has existed for centuries.
Israel is not afraid of the sanctions in themselves, but is afraid of the precedent they might set. If Britain can ban imports of settlement goods, then other countries can as well. If Britain can use the term ‘ethnic cleansing’, then others can do so too. Israel’s concern is that Western governments may cease to protect it from being held accountable.
Israel then responds in a severe, dramatic and punitive manner because its objective is not to deal with the problem but to frighten all the other countries into not imitating Britain’s actions.
This time, however, the retaliation is having the opposite effect. Britain has not changed its decision, the EU is currently discussing analogous measures, human rights organisations are reinforcing their position, and in the United States cracks are showing in the political barrier which has for decades protected Israel; some members of Congress have openly raised questions about military aid, several American universities have severed their connections with Israeli institutions because of concerns regarding human rights, and major churches — such as the Presbyterian Church USA — have officially declared that Israel is an apartheid society.
The fact that Israel is responding aggressively is not causing the criticism to cease; on the contrary, it is showing that there is reason for the criticism.
The pattern is now being seen by the world: Israel regards accountability as a form of attack, sees criticism as a threat, and views anyone who speaks out as an enemy to be punished. Each retaliatory action only makes the pattern more clear.
Britain spoke of ethnic cleansing. In reply, Israel attempted to destroy a consulate which predates the state itself. That isn’t diplomacy; it’s fear; it’s a lack of security; it’s a country so used to going unchecked that any challenge seems like a threat to its very existence.
The greater the retaliation by Israel, the more governments come to the realization that silence had never been neutrality—it had been equivalent to enabling.
We are a fully reader supported publication. We feature citizen journalists unapologetically. Help us grow and fuel honest, citizen journalism by becoming a paid member.
