Britain and Israel have reached an agreement on the British consulate in Jerusalem, under which it will be redesignated as a mission and the number of its diplomats reduced, while retaining its independence from the British embassy in Tel Aviv and continuing to report directly to London. The agreement followed mutual threats against the backdrop of a British plan to ban trade with settlements and impose sanctions on companies providing them with services, including financing.
Mutual threats to avoid a diplomatic confrontation
Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa'ar had threatened to close the consulate in response to the British move, while London indicated it could expel Israeli diplomats. However, both sides stepped back from an open diplomatic confrontation as Israel's election, scheduled for 27 October this month, approached.
Journalist Emma Graham-Harrison said in a report from Jerusalem for The Guardian that the attempt to close the consulate was intended to deter Britain from imposing sanctions linked to West Bank settlements. She said the dispute also reflected efforts by the Israeli government to reduce the independent international presence in Jerusalem and strengthen its claim to full sovereignty over the city.
Israeli lawyer Daniel Seidmann described the agreement as perhaps the best of the bad options available, but stressed that it did not represent a victory. He said downgrading the consulate's diplomatic status to that of a mission brought about a qualitative change in the nature of the British presence in the city.
The roots of the consulate's independence in Jerusalem
The British consulate's special status dates back to the period before Israel was established, when diplomatic arrangements reflected a view of Jerusalem as a neutral international zone. Alongside the British mission, East Jerusalem is home to seven other independent consulates opened before 1948, which report directly to their countries' foreign ministries rather than to embassies in Israel.
This status is based on the United Nations partition plan for Palestine in 1947, which proposed making Jerusalem a “separate entity” under international administration. The plan was never implemented, and Israeli forces took control of East Jerusalem in 1967, before Israel approved the city's annexation in 1980, a move not recognised by most countries around the world.
Pressure on missions and the settlements plan
Seidmann believes Israeli pressure on independent foreign missions forms part of an attempt to impose an exclusive view of Jerusalem's status, whereby any diplomatic presence that does not recognise sole Israeli sovereignty over the city becomes liable to pressure. The British plan is considered one of the most prominent steps taken by an Israeli ally to curb settlement expansion in the West Bank.
Israeli banks voiced concern about the impact of the sanctions and declined to clarify whether they would provide financial guarantees for construction contracts in the E1 settlement project. British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband said the timing of the move was linked to the issuing of tenders for the project.
Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich had said the project would bury the possibility of establishing a Palestinian state by separating parts of the West Bank from one another.
Ilan Baruch, Israel's former ambassador to South Africa, said the threats directed at the consulate showed that London had begun imposing a “meaningful price” on Israeli policies. He added that the mission's continued independence despite the change of name reflected an Israeli retreat from escalation, alongside British concessions that allowed both sides to save face.
