Israel, Settlements and Political Accountability: Sanctions and October 7

The news coming from Israel appears to concern different issues: new trade restrictions announced by several Western countries against settlements in the West Bank, a Reuters investigation into funding and institutional relationships that may have facilitated the expansion of outposts, and a journalistic account concerning an alleged warning received by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before Hamas's attack of October 7, 2023. In my view, however, these three developments raise a common question: to what extent can a government's decisions be considered consistent with its security obligations, international law, and its duty to account for the choices it makes?

The first development is a joint statement signed by the foreign ministers of twelve countries, including the United Kingdom, France and Canada. The signatories announced their intention to introduce national restrictions, support European measures or consider their adoption concerning trade in goods originating from settlements regarded as illegal under international law. London adopted a more specific position, announcing an import ban and a new sanctions regime that would also target individuals and entities involved in financing and constructing settlements. It is important to clarify that, according to the British government, the implementing legislation is expected to enter into force within six to nine months. The measure is therefore not yet a fully operational trade ban.

The distinction between Israel and the occupied territories constitutes the legal foundation of these measures. Article 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention of August 12, 1949, prohibits an occupying power from transferring parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies. United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 reiterates that the settlements have no legal validity and, in paragraph 5, calls upon States to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967. This is not merely a geographical distinction: it is intended to prevent economic and diplomatic relations from contributing to the consolidation of a situation contrary to international law.

The advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice has further clarified this legal framework. The Court found Israel's continued presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territory to be unlawful and identified obligations incumbent upon other States not to recognize the illegal situation and not to render aid or assistance in maintaining it. The opinion is not a criminal judgment against individual political figures, nor does it automatically determine the precise form that each State's trade restrictions must take. Nevertheless, it constitutes an authoritative legal assessment that makes it increasingly difficult to separate diplomatic declarations from concrete economic conduct.

It is against this background that the Reuters investigation becomes particularly significant. The news agency reconstructed the activities of brothers Eliav and Harel "Coco" Libi, owners of a company involved in producing prefabricated structures and establishing outposts in the West Bank. According to the investigation, the two men contributed to the establishment of at least nine new agricultural outposts from 2023 onwards, benefiting from authorizations, funding and relationships with public authorities. The company disputed the account, maintaining that it operates in accordance with the law. Military authorities denied having formal relationships with the brothers, while acknowledging coordination activities for security purposes. These qualifications are essential in order not to confuse the elements documented by the investigation with individual responsibilities that have been definitively established.

The most significant legal issue concerns not only the physical construction of new settlements, but also the possible participation of State institutions in their consolidation. In its advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice expressly considered public support, economic incentives and the regularization of outposts among the elements relevant to assessing settlement policy. Furthermore, Articles 4 and 8 of the International Law Commission's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts distinguish between the conduct of State organs and that of private persons acting on the instructions of, or under the direction or control of, a State. Not every private activity is automatically attributable to the government, but funding, authorizations and forms of coordination may become relevant to the assessment of responsibility, depending on the specific circumstances.

In my judgment, this dimension makes trade measures particularly important. If an economic activity contributes to maintaining an illegal situation, third States cannot simply regard it as an ordinary market transaction. The duty of non-recognition and non-assistance, also reflected in Article 41 of the Articles on State Responsibility, requires States to examine the concrete effects of their economic relationships. This does not mean that every company operating in Israel should be sanctioned, nor that corporate responsibility may be presumed. Clear legal bases, individualized criteria, proportionality and appropriate procedural safeguards remain necessary.

The third development introduces a different issue, but one closely connected to political accountability. According to a report by Haaretz, subsequently covered by Associated Press, the President of the United Arab Emirates, Mohammed bin Zayed, allegedly warned Netanyahu approximately ten days before October 7, 2023, of the possibility of a major Hamas operation. The Prime Minister reportedly replied that Israel was prepared and that an attack was more likely to come from the West Bank. Netanyahu's office categorically denied the report, rejecting both the existence of the conversation during the period indicated and the receipt of such a warning. On the basis of the sources examined, it would therefore be incorrect to present this account as a definitively established fact.

If the existence and content of that alleged communication were confirmed, the matter would be of considerable institutional significance. It would be necessary to establish what information was available, to whom it had been transmitted, how it had been assessed and what decisions had been taken. It would not, however, be methodologically sound to conclude automatically that a single warning would have made it possible to prevent the attack, or to establish a causal relationship between settlement policy and the failure of prevention. These are questions requiring documents, testimony and an independent investigation, rather than conclusions constructed with the benefit of hindsight.

Israel's constitutional system provides mechanisms for addressing such questions. The Basic Law: The Government establishes the government's collective responsibility to the Knesset, while Article 22 of the Basic Law: The Knesset regulates parliamentary commissions of inquiry. The Knesset has also approved, at first reading, a bill concerning a commission of inquiry into the events of October 7. The debate surrounding the manner in which such a body should be established demonstrates the importance of its independence, access to information and the public's confidence in its conclusions. A commission should not exist to confirm a predetermined political position, but to establish the facts and identify any institutional responsibilities.

The different levels of responsibility must also remain distinct. Political responsibility concerns the adequacy of decisions and the confidence a government deserves to retain. Administrative responsibility concerns compliance with duties and procedures. Individual criminal responsibility, by contrast, requires proof of conduct defined by law as an offence, the requisite mental element and any other applicable legal requirements. In a State governed by the rule of law, the gravity of the consequences cannot substitute for proof of individual responsibility. At the same time, the absence of a criminal conviction does not prevent a critical political assessment of an executive's decisions.

Hamas's terrorist attack of October 7, 2023, involving the killing of civilians and the taking of hostages, deserves unequivocal condemnation. Israel has the right and the duty to protect its population. Nevertheless, national security must be pursued in accordance with international humanitarian law and fundamental rights. The prohibition on acquiring territory by force, the rules governing occupation and the Palestinian people's right to self-determination do not cease to apply because of security threats. The International Court of Justice has likewise clarified that such concerns cannot justify the acquisition of sovereignty over occupied territory.

The connection between these three news stories does not lie in claiming that they demonstrate a single plan or responsibility that has already been established. Rather, it lies in recognizing that a State's security, the legality of its territorial policies and the quality of its oversight mechanisms cannot be treated as entirely separate questions. A government that asks its citizens for their trust must be able to explain its priorities, make its decisions subject to scrutiny and allow any failures to be examined by independent bodies.

In my view, the future of Israel and Palestine requires precisely this change of perspective: fewer faits accomplis on the ground, greater institutional accountability and diplomacy capable of translating legal principles into effective measures. The security of Israelis and the self-determination of Palestinians are not incompatible objectives. They become incompatible only when the former is pursued through the permanent denial of the latter. International law does not provide immediate solutions to every conflict, but it establishes limits that no government should regard as optional. A credible prospect of peace can begin again only through respect for those limits and the willingness to ensure that they are upheld.