"Rhetoric Severely Mismatched with Substance": UK Sanctions on Israel Criticized by Its Own Media; Haaretz Further Reveals Netanyahu's Prior Knowledge of October 7

The Times published a leading article on the 9th, directly taking aim at the UK government's sanctions on Israeli West Bank settlers as "not matching the dramatic rhetoric," potentially "counter-productive," and warning the move would "fuel the flames of anti-Semitism" in Britain. The paper also judged that these measures "do not help the Palestinians." This sharp criticism from a mainstream British newspaper has placed the UK government in an awkward position: high-sounding rhetoric on the Israel-Palestine issue, yet judged by its own media to have hollow policy.

What triggered this internal dispute was an earlier announcement of sanctions by UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband (Ed Miliband). According to The Independent, Miliband characterized Israel's ongoing actions in the West Bank as "ethnic cleansing" and described local settlers as "settler terrorists." In addition, Miliband added that the occupation of the West Bank as a whole is illegal. The front page of The i Paper reported the story under the headline "UK Accuses Settlers of Ethnic Cleansing, Israel Furious."

However, The Times' leading article pushed back, saying that the actual effectiveness of these measures is in doubt, and there is a clear gap between the mildness of the sanctions and the severity of the language used.

The substantive cost of the sanctions may already be emerging. According to The i Paper, after the UK imposed import bans, its channels for obtaining Israeli intelligence face the risk of being curtailed. This means that the UK government, known for its tough rhetoric, still faces concrete trade-offs when it comes to the practical interests of security cooperation.

Miliband's announcement has also triggered a fierce backlash within the domestic Jewish community. The Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom described the day of the sanctions announcement as "a truly dark day for British Jews." Miliband promptly responded by invoking his personal identity, emphasizing his Jewish background and declaring himself a "proud British Jew." Both sides invoked identity on the same issue, yet arrived at diametrically opposite conclusions.

While Britain continues to argue over its Israel-Palestine policy, Israeli media are engaged in intense debate around a separate accountability storm. An investigation by Haaretz disclosed that Prime Minister Netanyahu had been briefed on relevant intelligence before the October 7, 2023 attack, but his reported reaction was "boredom and indifference." Haaretz's leading article, titled "Netanyahu Knew," upheld its allegations and traced Netanyahu's responsibility back to the years before the attack—a period during which he allegedly allowed Hamas to receive funding.

Israel's Ynet News was unsurprised by Haaretz's findings, judging that they "add another entry to the series of warning signs before October 7," but also concluded that these revelations would not have an impact on the Israeli election. Haaretz held the opposite view, arguing that after "three years of lies and bloodshed," this disclosure could become a decisive moment for swing voters.

Haaretz has vowed to continue pursuing the responsibility of those who knew, while The Times has trained its guns on the effectiveness of its own government's sanctions. Under the simultaneous attacks from these two newspapers, both the practical effectiveness of the sanctions and the political price to be paid by those who knew remain unresolved.