The rumors over the past week that British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband was going to announce a "reset” in relations with Israel sparked a fearmongering campaign aimed at dissuading the government from taking what Israeli President Isaac Herzog described as "miscalculated” steps. Such steps would supposedly be miscalculated because Britain, like any other country, has to calculate what antagonizing Israel could mean for its security within the rules-based international order. To further highlight the potential consequences, the Telegraph published an interview with Conservative Shadow Foreign Secretary Tom Tugendhat, in which he suggested that, if implemented, the new government policy would make it more difficult to deal with future terrorist threats. This came after Argentina’s present threat to take over the Falkland Islands, itself arguably in retaliation for Britain’s planned sanctions on individuals and entities aiding and abetting the "Israeli occupation.”

On Tuesday, Miliband finally announced a trade ban on goods and services from illegal Israeli settlements in the West Bank, along with a set of other measures intended to prevent Israel from "burying” the two-state solution. Though the two-state solution has long been underground, this shift in policy was welcomed by many, among them Palestinian Ambassador to the U.K. Husam Zomlot. In his words, it was "a step in the right direction.” Despite Bloomberg’s report that the British government had assured the U.S. government ahead of the announcement that its action would remain largely symbolic, the reaction to the news from Israel’s most fanatical supporters indicates that, indeed, it was at least a step worth taking. And it was taken alongside 11 other countries, including France and Canada, both of which recognized the State of Palestine last year.

As expected, Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar retaliated within hours, most notably by closing the British Consulate in occupied East Jerusalem, a diplomatic mission accredited to the Palestinian Authority. Saar also said that Britain would be excluded from the U.S.-led Gaza task force, and that a number of British nationals, mostly politicians, would be barred from entering Israel. Thus far, there has been no Bloomberg report that Israel has assured the U.S. that its retaliation would be largely symbolic.

It should be noted that Miliband’s speech in Parliament was far from perfect. In fact, it was full of statements designed to appease those who are responsible for the very problems that the measures announced by the government are supposed to solve. The emphasis on the distinction between banning trade with illegal settlements and banning trade with "Green Line Israel” was not helpful either, as it obscured the simple fact that the illegal settlements in question have been a product of long-standing Israeli state policy. Nonetheless, Miliband’s willingness to act was significant, not least because it placed Britain in a leading position on a matter of great international importance at last.

Crucially, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has not yet commented on Miliband’s announcement of Britain’s new sanctions regime. He has been too busy managing the fallout from Haaretz’s report earlier on Tuesday. The revelation that Netanyahu had been warned by the leader of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) of an impending Hamas attack days before Oct. 7, 2023, and that he ignored the warning raised all sorts of questions. He has come under fire from multiple fronts, uniting opposition figures within Israel in their condemnation of him. Alluding to Netanyahu’s claim that no one had "woken him up” before it was too late on that fateful day, opposition leader Yair Lapid wrote: "For a whole week, the government has been preparing us for sanctions from Britain, and then it turns out that another 10 important countries have joined it and no one knew. Didn’t they wake him up?”

Another leader who has not commented on Miliband’s announcement yet is U.S. President Donald Trump. When asked about it, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio "did not condemn” Britain’s move either. On the contrary, he told reporters that the U.S. "shares the goal of stability” and that it does not want "to see an uptick in violence in the West Bank in a tenuous time in the region.” Axios reporter Barak Ravid interpreted this as tacit approval, signaling Trump’s "frustration” with Netanyahu. And for Netanyahu, the timing could hardly be worse. With the elections approaching, he now has to contend not only with growing international pressure, but also with renewed questions at home over his handling of the events on and after Oct. 7. Whether these will translate into votes against him, however, remains to be seen. One thing is certain: The decision-makers have finally found their sacrificial goat.