Professor Toğrul İsmayıl. Israel at a New Diplomatic Threshold: When International Law Begins to Carry a Price
Author: Toğrul İsmayıl , Turkish political scientist, Professor at the Department of Political History, Kahramanmaraş University
The decision by twelve Western states to restrict trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank is an event that cannot be regarded merely as another episode in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The economic scale of these restrictions is relatively limited. Goods produced in the settlements account for only a small share of Israel’s foreign trade. Therefore, these measures alone are unlikely to seriously alter the country’s economic position. However, the political and international legal significance of what is taking place is considerably greater than its immediate economic impact.
For the first time, a number of states that have traditionally been among Israel’s most important partners are demonstrating a willingness to move their long-standing criticism of settlement policy from the realm of diplomatic statements into the sphere of concrete political and economic action.
The United Kingdom, France and Canada have announced bans on imports of products from Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Nine other states have joined this position, reaffirming their support for the two-state solution and the need to counter the expansion of settlements and violence by radical settlers.
This is where a new political reality begins.
The issue is no longer simply whether a particular country approves or disapproves of the policies pursued by Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.
The question is what price the international community is prepared to pay for upholding its own principles.
From Diplomatic Statements to Practical Measures
For many years, Western states adhered to a relatively stable model.
They recognised Israel’s right to security.
At the same time, they supported the establishment of an independent Palestinian state.
They criticised the expansion of Israeli settlements.
Yet economic and political relations with Israel generally continued to develop.
This created an obvious contradiction.
On the one hand, European governments stated that the settlements were illegal and undermined the prospects for the establishment of a Palestinian state.
On the other hand, the practical consequences of this position remained limited.
Today, this contradiction is beginning to break down.
This is precisely why the current decision should not be seen as sanctions against Israel as a whole, but rather as an attempt to draw a clearer distinction between Israel as a state and the policy of settlements in occupied territory.
This is a fundamentally important distinction.
Criticism of the actions of the Israeli government must not turn into criticism of the Israeli people or the Jewish people.
Moreover, combating antisemitism and protecting Palestinian rights are not mutually exclusive objectives.
If international law is genuinely universal, it must protect the security of Israelis while simultaneously protecting the rights of Palestinians.
Universality, rather than selectivity, is the principal criterion of international legitimacy.
Is the West No Longer United?
At the same time, it would be incorrect to speak of a united Western front against Israel.
No such unity exists.
The United States has declined to join the trade restrictions on settlement products, arguing that such measures could destabilise the situation in the West Bank.
There are also serious disagreements within the European Union itself.
Some states believe that the continued construction of settlements is making the two-state solution increasingly unrealistic and therefore requires a tougher response.
Others fear the complete deterioration of relations with Israel.
What is happening, therefore, is more accurately described not as a “Western turn against Israel,” but as the fragmentation of Western policy towards Israel.
This is a far more serious process.
The old consensus is gradually disappearing, while a new one has yet to emerge.
The Main Issue Is Not Sanctions, but International Law
If the situation is viewed exclusively through an economic lens, one might conclude that the current measures are primarily symbolic.
But international politics cannot always be measured by trade volumes.
Sometimes the political signal itself is far more important.
In this case, the signal is clear:
if a particular territory is considered occupied and settlements there are considered illegal, the international community should not create economic incentives for the continuation of such a policy.
This is no longer merely a question concerning Israel and Palestine.
It is a question concerning the very principle of international law.
After the Second World War, the international system was built around several fundamental principles: state sovereignty, territorial integrity, the prohibition on acquiring territory by force, protection of the civilian population, and the right of peoples to self-determination.
If these principles are applied only when politically convenient, they cease to function as universal norms.
And that creates an extremely dangerous situation.
Other states begin to conclude that international law applies only up to the boundary established by the great powers.
This undermines confidence in the international system itself.
The Palestinian Question Has Become a Test for Europe
Europe faces a particularly difficult situation.
For decades, the European Union has built its international identity not only on economic power, but also on what is often called normative power — the ability to influence the international system through law, institutions, human rights and international norms.
Europe constantly tells the world:
borders must not be changed by force;
civilian populations must be protected;
international humanitarian law must be respected;
human rights are universal.
But today, the Palestinian question confronts Europe with an extremely uncomfortable question:
will these principles be applied equally to everyone?
This is where the main political risk lies.
Because the issue is no longer only Israel’s reputation.
It is also Europe’s own reputation.
If Europe demands respect for international law in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus or other regions of the world, while applying much more cautious standards in the Middle East, states of the Global South will inevitably raise the issue of double standards.
And this question cannot simply be dismissed as anti-Western propaganda.
It has an objective political basis.
Israel: Not Isolation, but a Rising International Cost
At the same time, it would be incorrect to speak of Israel’s complete international isolation.
Israel retains an exceptionally powerful military and technological potential.
It continues to possess significant economic resources.
It maintains extremely close ties with the United States.
It still has influential political partners in Europe.
Therefore, the current process cannot be described as a collapse of Israel’s international standing.
Something else is happening.
The political cost of its policies is increasing.
This is a slower, but potentially more significant process.
Where settlement expansion once generated mainly diplomatic statements, restrictions are now beginning to appear.
Where European criticism once often had no practical consequences, economic and political instruments of pressure are now emerging.
If this process continues, Israel will have to take into account not only the military and political consequences of its policies, but also their long-term diplomatic cost.
E1 Is More Than a Construction Project
The E1 project in the West Bank is of particular significance.
At first glance, it concerns construction.
Geopolitically, however, the issue is far more serious.
The E1 area lies between Jerusalem and major Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Its further development could substantially affect the territorial continuity of Palestinian areas.
European states therefore regard E1 as one of the factors that could ultimately undermine the territorial foundations of a future Palestinian state.
This creates a fundamental problem.
One can speak endlessly about support for a two-state solution.
But if the territory of a future Palestinian state is gradually transformed into a system of disconnected enclaves, the very concept of two states becomes increasingly unrealistic.
In this sense, the dispute over E1 is not a dispute over several thousand housing units.
It is a struggle over the geography of a future political settlement.
Türkiye: A Matter of Principle, Not Political Conjuncture
For Türkiye, the Palestinian question has humanitarian, legal and geopolitical dimensions simultaneously.
Ankara has consistently supported the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, an end to the occupation and compliance with international law.
Türkiye therefore supports the decision of the twelve states and calls for further international measures against the expansion of illegal settlements.
But the Turkish position is also relevant beyond the Middle East.
Türkiye seeks to demonstrate that international law should not function as an instrument applied exclusively to the opponents or competitors of Western powers.
If territorial integrity is a principle, it must be a principle for everyone.
This is why the Palestinian issue has a broader meaning for Ankara.
It concerns the future of the international system.
The Azerbaijani Factor
For Azerbaijan, this issue also carries particular significance.
Baku has traditionally emphasised the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and internationally recognised borders.
The application of different approaches to different territorial conflicts therefore inevitably creates a problem of double standards.
It is impossible to argue that territorial integrity is a fundamental principle of international law in one region and then treat changes in territorial realities in another region as an almost irreversible political fact.
This is one of the reasons why the Palestinian issue matters not only to the Arab world.
It matters to the Caucasus, Central Asia, Türkiye and the Global South as a whole.
For Azerbaijan, this is a particularly sensitive issue because international legal arguments have always played an important role in its foreign policy position.
Europe Faces a Choice
European states today effectively face three options.
The first is to continue limiting themselves to statements.
The second is gradually to expand targeted economic and political restrictions.
The third is to move towards a more systematic policy that links relations with Israel to compliance with international law and the preservation of the possibility of a two-state solution.
The first option has already demonstrated its limitations.
The second is currently developing.
The third remains the most politically difficult.
Yet in the long term, it is precisely the third option that could provide European diplomacy with a genuine instrument of influence.
What Comes Next?
In the coming months, I see three possible scenarios.
The first is further diplomatic escalation.
Israel will regard the restrictions as pressure from states interfering in its domestic policy.
European governments, by contrast, will argue that the issue is not interference in Israel’s internal affairs, but compliance with international law.
Israel is already responding with diplomatic measures. In particular, the closure of the British consulate in East Jerusalem and additional restrictions on British representatives have been announced.
The second scenario is a partial adjustment of Israeli policy.
Under international pressure, Israel may make limited concessions.
However, this would most likely not represent a strategic change of course, but rather an attempt to reduce the diplomatic cost of existing policies.
The third — and most dangerous — scenario is the normalisation of a new status quo.
Israel continues to control the territory.
Palestinian territory becomes increasingly fragmented.
Europe periodically introduces new restrictions.
The United States continues to support Israel.
Arab states increase diplomatic pressure.
All sides become accustomed to the conflict.
I consider this to be the most dangerous scenario.
Because it would no longer be a temporary crisis.
It would amount to the transformation of the conflict into a permanent political system.
The International System at a Crossroads
Today, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the clearest examples of the crisis affecting the contemporary system of international relations.
The question is not only who is right and who is wrong.
The question is what rules will define international politics in the twenty-first century.
If states conclude that security is determined exclusively by military force, alliances and political influence, international law will gradually lose its significance.
If, however, the international community can demonstrate that violations of international law carry political and economic costs regardless of who commits them, this would represent an important step towards restoring confidence in the international system.
This is precisely why the current decision by the twelve states has a significance that extends far beyond its economic scale.
Conclusion
Israel is not currently in complete international isolation.
But it is entering a period in which the international cost of its policies is steadily increasing.
These are not the same thing.
Israel may retain its military power.
It may retain American support.
It may retain a substantial share of its economic ties with Europe.
But if its settlement policy continues to undermine the possibility of establishing a Palestinian state, the gap between Israel and a significant part of European public opinion and the political establishment will continue to widen.
Ultimately, this could become a more serious challenge for Israel than individual trade restrictions.
States can survive economic sanctions.
But the gradual loss of international legitimacy is much more difficult to compensate for.
At the same time, Europe cannot regard itself as a winner either.
The Palestinian question has become a kind of mirror for Europe.
In that mirror, Europe sees its own contradiction between proclaimed values and political practice.
Türkiye views the issue primarily through the prism of international law, justice and the need to establish an independent Palestinian state.
Azerbaijan views it through the prism of sovereignty, territorial integrity and the universality of international legal principles.
For the Global South, the question is broader still:
if international law is genuinely universal, why should its force depend on who the violator is?
This is the question the international system must answer.
Because today, the issue is no longer only Palestine.
It concerns the future of the very concept of “international law.”
If it is applied selectively, the world will ultimately return to the politics of power.
If, on the other hand, it genuinely becomes a universal rule, current events may mark the beginning of a gradual restoration of confidence in the international order.
This is why the question of Israel today is simultaneously a question concerning Palestine, Europe, Türkiye, Azerbaijan and the entire international community.
Above all, it is a question of whether law will remain above political expediency.