When British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband stood before the House of Commons on Tuesday to announce a ban on imports from Israeli settlements in the West Bank, he lauded the decision as one intended to protect Palestinians and preserve the possibility of a two-state solution.
“I do not believe that the British people want us supporting the occupation by accepting products from settlements in our shops and supermarkets,” Miliband said. “So, I can announce today that we will introduce an import ban on goods from illegal settlements in the occupied territories.
“We will take action against specific companies and individuals who provide services such as construction, infrastructure, financing, or real estate for settlement expansion.”
What happens to Palestinians who make their living from boycotted businesses?
Yet amid Miliband’s declarations of settler “ethnic cleansing” and solidarity with Palestinians, which peppered his speech, there is a question to which he provided no answer: What happens to the Palestinians who make their living from the businesses the UK is seeking to hurt?
According to the latest quarterly labor force survey from the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS), approximately 17,600 West Bank Palestinians were employed in Israeli settlements during the second quarter of 2026.
Taking a look at the Palestinian economy, the same PCBS survey recorded West Bank unemployment at 27.9%, with approximately 284,000 people out of work.
In other words, the Palestinians employed in Israeli settlements play more than their part in the Palestinian economy at a time when over a quarter of West Bank Palestinians are unemployed. There are thousands of workers earning salaries, spending their currency inside the Palestinian economy, supporting families, and all of this within an economy which is already struggling to provide sufficient employment.
None of this resolves the argument over settlements, nor does Palestinian employment there provide an answer to the legal and political arguments surrounding them. But, if the purpose of an import ban is to reduce the revenues of businesses operating beyond the Green Line, it is reasonable to ask who will bear the consequences if that policy succeeds.
Businesses that lose customers eventually reduce production, investment, staffing, and in some cases, close altogether. The economic consequences of such actions do not distinguish between an Israeli owner and a Palestinian employee – something the UK government did not address in its grand announcement.
Israel also has precedent for how complicated such a situation can get
For years, SodaStream operated a large factory in the Mishor Adumim industrial zone, employing around 500 Palestinians alongside Israeli Jews and Arabs. The company became one of the most prominent targets of the international boycott movement, with the controversy reaching the mainstream in 2014 when actress Scarlett Johansson resigned as an Oxfam ambassador after the charity objected to her relationship with the Israeli company.
SodaStream subsequently closed its Mishor Adumim operation and moved to a new facility in the Negev, where it employs around 1,400 people, including Bedouins.
SodaStream CEO Daniel Birnbaum has consistently rejected claims that the boycott campaign forced the company out of Mishor Adumim, saying the relocation had been planned for commercial reasons and as part of a broader consolidation of its production facilities. The boycott movement claimed the departure as a victory, but the company disputes this.
What is without dispute, however, is what happened to the Palestinian workforce there, which is a lesson in and of itself.
SodaStream tried to bring hundreds of its Palestinian employees to the new factory, but doing so required Israeli work permits. Only a fraction could continue working there and, by early 2016, just 74 Palestinian employees remained. When their permits expired, they too lost their jobs, although those workers were eventually allowed to return the following year.
Perhaps the UK considered the risk and sees it as a price worth paying
Israel’s permit policies did play an important role in the loss of those jobs, and it would be inaccurate to simply state that a boycott put hundreds of Palestinians out of work. But the episode demonstrates that Western policymakers should bear in mind that attempting to come down on Israeli businesses over the Green Line can affect the Palestinian economy as well as the Israeli economy.
Sometimes the jobs cross back over the Green Line and the workers cannot.
Perhaps the UK considered the risk and sees it as a price worth paying. Perhaps Palestinian workers themselves overwhelmingly agree. There are, undoubtedly, Palestinians who believe that economic pressure on the settlements is worth the potential personal cost as part of a wider political struggle.
Palestinian Ambassador to Britain Husam Zomlot welcomed Tuesday’s announcement as a “turning point” and called for further measures against Israel. Palestinian officials in Ramallah described Britain’s decision as a “significant political achievement.” Political points appear to have precedence over potential economic distress.
At the very least, Britain should acknowledge that economic pressure on Israel will have consequences beyond the people it intends to punish.
Before the UK (and by extension France, Canada, and the other countries supporting such action) congratulate themselves on refusing to buy products made in Judea and Samaria, they might consider finding out who actually makes them.
Britain says its new policy is intended to help Palestinians and punish Israel. But Palestinians will also pay a price.
