Inside the UK’s shift on Israel – and the hidden role of Melania Trump

When Ed Miliband stood up on Tuesday in the House of Commons to sanction Israel’s illegal West Bank settlements, the Foreign Secretary marked an historic shift in tone and foreign policy. In a remarkable ratcheting up of diplomatic language, he accused Israel of turning a blind eye to the “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinians by settlers, while also accusing them of terrorism. The dramatic change in foreign policy had only been six weeks in the planning. The i Paper spoke to dozens of officials, granting them anonymity to speak freely in order to write an account of warp-speed diplomacy across continents as most people were enjoying a summer holiday, while also showing the surprising role of First Lady Melania Trump. Shorts Trump might have been expected to back Israel and condemn Miliband. The president is not afraid to publicly chastise global leaders, as Sir Keir Starmer learnt to his cost in his dying days as prime minister. In the end, the president’s response was muted. Concerns in London over Washington’s response were not out of place. US ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, told the BBC on the morning of the announcement that the US was minded to invoke “sanctions, repercussions or retaliations” towards the UK, although he couldn’t articulate what they would look like and hadn’t spoken to Trump. Huckabee views modern Israel through a framework of Christian Zionism; God gave the land to the Jewish people through a biblical covenant with Abraham. Congressman Randy Fine later warned the move could risk triggering a formal boycott from Florida, which has punitive laws against companies that boycott Israel. Huckabee freelancing But it transpired Huckabee was freelancing. On Tuesday, the White House distanced itself from his comments and by Tuesday evening London time Secretary of State Marco Rubio, was far more muted. “Obviously, we’re not going to do what the UK did,” he said. “We saw their announcement today, but I don’t have any comment on it right now.” By Wednesday, Trump himself had gone public. “Well, I’ve just seen it, and I’ll be speaking to Israel… I understand exactly what’s going on, but I want to find out why all of a sudden does that happen,” the president told reporters. “The administration was offered plenty of opportunities to bite on reporters proffering outrage and they decided not to take it,” according to one Washington insider. Trump’s refusal to condemn the UK was the latest evidence of his acrimonious relations with Netanyahu after previous spats over strategies for the Iran war and the peace process in Gaza. Moreover, the US has criticised settler violence in the West Bank and told Israel it should not formally annex the occupied territory, as this would alienate the US’s Arab and Muslim allies in the region. Those allies are also mediating on Gaza and Trump needs them to pressure Hamas. Perhaps less noted is the role of Melania Trump. A decade ago, as the guest of Sara Netanyahu, wife of the Israeli prime minister, the two women visited children at Jerusalem’s Hadassah hospital. These days it’s the suffering of young people in Gaza that is of concern to the First Lady. “Trump does not like Israeli settlements,” one diplomatic source said. “He has been successfully briefed by Melania and [US Special Envoy for Peace] Jared Kushner about settlements; when it comes to suffering kids, she gets involved.” Meanwhile, there are multiple other reasons to explain why the US president did not condemn the UK’s actions. “Trump is obsessed with the Canada trade deal, and that is taking up all his attention,” a second diplomatic source said. “He doesn’t like Bibi either. So, sanctions against settlements is not like saying ‘windmills’ to him which triggers a violent reaction.” Government sources said American officials told their counterparts in London they shared their concerns about the West Bank, even if they did not agree with the sanctions regime. Prime Minister Andy Burnham and Trump had a call on Monday which “went well” according to one UK official. “I don’t think we should expect a strong reaction on this” they added. “Of course, things may change and someone else may get in his ear. “But the view is that we want to retain our privileged position on trade and technology. So, it’s not so much relief that the Americans haven’t reacted strongly, it’s more we didn’t want this to have an impact across our important relationships.” A second government source with knowledge of the call said Trump didn’t push back on the sanctions or ask Burnham to change course. Feet only just under the desk London sweltered in July as a wave of Labour acclamation put Burnham into No 10. Installed as Foreign Secretary, Miliband had been in the grand King Charles Street buildings for only a matter of minutes before his officials urged him to confirm whether he’d make the plane to attend a meeting of foreign ministers in the Philippines. Miliband decided to go. The long journey allowed him time with his new senior team to discuss what became known as “the reset.” Amid horror at the Gaza campaign and West Bank settler extremism, the new approach re-asserted the logic of eventually arriving at a two-state solution, a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel. The relationship between the UK and Israel began to worsen when Labour assumed power in 2024, partly because of the introduction of a partial arms embargo. Starmer’s approach to Israel In the early weeks of the Israel-Hamas conflict, Starmer faced criticism for not calling for an immediate ceasefire and saying in an interview that Israel had the “right” to cut off the supply of power and water to Gaza. He never really recovered and appeared to have the worst of both worlds: regarded in Jerusalem as pro-Hamas while at home seen as too pro-Israel. Even the recognition of the state of Palestine last year, and the sanctioning of two Israeli ministers, did little to satisfy Labour clamour for greater action. Burnham, more attuned to the sentiment among the Labour Party and mindful of the growing electoral threat from the Greens on his left flank, had already made his views on Israel clear. “Labour’s initial response to the treatment of Gaza caused huge hurt. We got it wrong and I am sorry for that,” Burnham said in social media video in early July before being installed as prime minister. Burnham and Miliband wanted a break from the evasive, hesitant tone under Starmer. Miliband now just had to make the case for sanctions watertight. Israeli settlements Back in London after the Manila trip in July, Miliband was briefed on Israel’s plans to open tenders for the construction of 1,200 settler homes in a key area of the West Bank known as E1. While the Foreign Office under his predecessor Yvette Cooper had been preparing a response to the contracts, it’s not clear how far Starmer’s No 10 would have allowed her to go. “It became clear the Israelis were trying to lock in those contracts in ahead of the elections in October,” a diplomatic source said. “There was an argument for waiting until after the [Israeli] elections to act but that would have sent the wrong message,” another Government source added. Drawing on a range of experts, Miliband went back to basics, asking whether there was sufficient evidence to use highly controversial terms such as “ethnic cleansing” and “war crimes.” “Big parts of his diary were set aside for briefings with officials, so that he could be brought up to speed very quickly on the detail, and the department was left under no uncertainty what they had to try and deliver. “His view was we need absolute cast iron evidence for us to potentially announce sanctions, and only then would he make a decision on whether he thought that was ultimately enough, or whether officials needed to go and do more,” a Foreign Office source said. Even while Miliband ostensibly took a week-long break in August with his family in Galicia, Spain, he was dialling in to regular meetings about whether officials had made a watertight case. Burnham approves go-ahead When Westminster came back to work in the first week of September, Burnham and Miliband met to decide if they would press ahead. The pair concluded the threshold for sanctions had been passed. It was all systems go. While making a legally watertight case for sanctions at home, Miliband had also been in touch with his French and Canadian counterparts. They decided a co-ordinated approach would have a greater impact. “We hunt in packs diplomatically so it shouldn’t have been a surprise really that we did this joined up with other countries,” a British minister told The i Paper. While the French had been keen to make the announcement on the world stage at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York at the end of September, the British knew they were running out of time before Parliament rose for the conference recess. All the nations, mindful of violence against their own Jewish citizens, wanted to avoid the sanctions clashing with Rosh Hashanah, Jewish new year which falls this weekend. The Cabinet discussed the issue on Tuesday morning before Miliband confirmed the plans to MPs. In the Commons, Shadow Foreign Secretary Tom Tugendhat warned turning Israel into a “pariah” would risk a further rise in antisemitic violence on British streets, with the party broadly cautioning the move could isolate Israel diplomatically. Labour sources had expected the Tories to object but were pleasantly surprised by the reaction of pro-Israel Tory MP Sir Edward Leigh, who supported Miliband. Reaction from the British Jewish community Outside the chamber, Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis called it a “dark day for British Jews” that would only bolster the extremism it claims to target. But other rabbis, including Jeremy Gordon of the New London Synagogue and Jonathan Wittenberg, Senior Rabbi of Masorti Judaism UK did not take the same approach. Miliband pushed back against Mirvis, saying he is a “proud British Jew.” While some on the hard left (and Hamas) said the statement didn’t go far enough, most Labour MPs were pleased. “I have not been this happy about the direction of the party in about ten years. I am thrilled with Andy and Ed,” one Labour MP told The i Paper. Israel, meanwhile, reacted with expected fury. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the UK the “Islamic Republic of Britain” and his administration declared its intention to close Britain’s diplomatic mission to the Palestinians, remove UK military personnel from an international coordination base near Gaza, and deny entry to nearly a dozen left-wing British MPs. Your Party MP Zarah Sultana said her travel ban as “a badge of honour” but another MP who has been barred took a more nuanced view. “Perhaps at one point I would have celebrated like Zarah, but not anymore,” the MP told The i Paper. “In geopolitics the more you know, the less you know. I don’t want to see Israel going down the way it’s going, I genuinely don’t, because it’s not good for the region. I want normalisation, but it has to be with the Palestinians’ freedom.” Eyes turn to Washington DC While Miliband updated MPs on his plans, Canada and France made their own announcements. By the end of the day a further 11, mostly European, countries had joined the settlement trade ban. But in Whitehall, as in other European capitals, it was not the reaction in Jerusalem officials were concerned about. All eyes were on Washington DC. When Israel faces international isolation, the United States, as its principal ally, often throws a diplomatic arm around Israel. But the timing was in Miliband and Burnham’s favour. Trump’s frustration with Bibi dovetailed with the long-held wishes of the Labour Party. By the end of the week, after weeks of preparation, British officials breathed a sigh of relief, satisfied the episode bodes well for an as-yet-unconfirmed meeting between Trump and Burnham when the two men attend UNGA at the end of the month. Even so, relations between the UK and Netanyahu’s regime are now in the deep freeze. Even if the Likud Party is swept from power next month and replaced by opponent Gadi Eisenkot, his Yashar Party still favours expanding settlements. Any British-Israeli thaw looks highly unlikely.