Muted US response to UK’s West Bank sanctions may reflect simmering frustration
BBC Homepage
Skip to content
Accessibility Help
Your account
Home
News
Sport
Earth
Reel
Worklife
Travel
Culture
Future
Music
TV
Weather
Sounds
More menu
More menu
Search BBC
Home
News
Sport
Earth
Reel
Worklife
Travel
Culture
Future
Music
TV
Weather
Sounds
Close menu
BBC News
Menu
Home
Climate
World
UK
Business
Tech
Science
Entertainment & Arts
Health
In Pictures
More
BBC Verify
Newsbeat
World
Africa
Asia
Australia
Europe
Latin America
Middle East
US & Canada
Muted US response to UK’s West Bank sanctions may reflect simmering frustration
Image source: Getty Images
By Tom Bateman
State department correspondent
Published 13 minutes ago
As the UK unveiled sanctions against Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank on Monday, Israel responded with fury, declaring it would shutter Britain’s diplomatic mission to the Palestinians, kick out UK military staff from an international coordination base near Gaza, and ban nearly a dozen left-wing British members of parliament from entering Israel.
It was a blaring signal of defiance and a remarkable diplomatic escalation. The UK had taken the action arguing it had a moral imperative to stop the "destruction" of the two-state solution – a future independent Palestinian state – at the hands of the Israeli government. It accused Israel’s government of turning a blind eye to the "ethnic cleansing" of Palestinians by settlers.
The standoff, which by the afternoon extended to a further 11 mostly European countries set to join the settlement trade ban, raised a crucial question: When Israel becomes isolated, the US as its superpower backer often steps in to provide a diplomatic shield. Was the US, too, going to condemn Britain’s policy?
Such a reprimand had been previewed by some observers. It felt even more likely when the US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, appeared on the BBC before the UK announcement suggesting American "sanctions, repercussions or retaliations" could be coming for Britain, albeit that he didn’t know what these were and hadn’t spoken to President Trump.
But as Tuesday wore on, Washington’s response was notably muted.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, asked about the UK move by reporters on the way to Colombia, said: "Obviously, we’re not going to do what the UK did. We saw their announcement today but I don’t have any comment on it right now."* He added that Britain had notified the administration ahead of time (most likely during a phone call Trump had with UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham on Monday) and said the US shared "the goal of stability" at a tense time in the region and didn’t "want to see some uptick in violence… in the West Bank."
It was hardly a withering rebuke of the British move, let alone any kind of punishment. In fact, Washington seemed to be sharing some of the concerns that motivated the move.
Asked about it on Wednesday, Trump said he would be speaking to Israel to understand their thinking, adding: "I understand exactly what’s going on, but I want to find out why all of a sudden has that happened."
My understanding is that discussions about the US response were taking place at a high level within the administration on Tuesday. The baseline position appeared to be against any moves that could negatively impact American companies.
To play this video you need to enable JavaScript in your browser.
This video can not be played
Figure caption:
Fears for children’s safety in West Bank school as settler attacks rise
Huckabee, who has longstanding views based on biblical justifications for Jewish settlement in the West Bank, appeared to be speaking off the cuff in some of his public remarks – a feature now common for some Trump-appointed ambassadors.
Staunchly pro-Israel Republicans in Congress were very publicly arguing for actions against Britain; pointing out that US states like Florida have punitive laws against companies that boycott Israel. But from Tuesday night onwards, there was little sign of any concrete action being considered in Washington.
