US restraint on UK West Bank sanctions signals frustration with Netanyahu

On Tuesday, Britain announced sanctions against Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, framing the move as a moral necessity to preserve the possibility of a Palestinian state. The government accused Israel's leadership of permitting what it called ethnic cleansing by settlers—a direct and unsparing charge. Israel's response was swift and severe: it announced the closure of Britain's diplomatic mission to the Palestinians, the removal of UK military personnel from a coordination base near Gaza, and a ban on nearly a dozen British parliamentarians from entering the country. It was a sharp escalation, a public display of defiance that signaled how seriously Jerusalem took the rebuke.

By afternoon, the UK's action had broadened into a coordinated move involving eleven additional countries, mostly European, all preparing to impose similar trade restrictions on the settlements. The standoff raised an immediate question in diplomatic circles: Would the United States, Israel's principal superpower ally, move to shield its partner from this isolation? The question seemed especially urgent after Mike Huckabee, the US ambassador to Israel, had appeared on the BBC before the UK announcement to warn that American "sanctions, repercussions or retaliations" could follow—though he acknowledged he hadn't actually discussed this with President Trump and wasn't certain what form such measures might take.

But as the day progressed, Washington's reply proved notably restrained. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, speaking to reporters while traveling to Colombia, declined to condemn the British decision. He noted that the administration had been informed in advance—likely during a phone call between Trump and UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham on Monday—and said the US shared Britain's interest in regional stability and preventing an escalation of violence in the West Bank. It was a measured statement, notably free of the rebuke many had anticipated. Trump himself, asked about the move on Wednesday, said he would speak with Israeli leadership to understand their reasoning, but his tone suggested curiosity rather than disapproval.

Behind the scenes, high-level discussions within the Trump administration were underway about how to respond. The emerging consensus appeared to center on avoiding any action that might harm American companies. Huckabee's public warnings seemed to reflect his own longstanding views—he has justified Jewish settlement in the West Bank on biblical grounds—rather than a coordinated administration position. Some staunchly pro-Israel Republicans in Congress pushed loudly for punitive measures against Britain, pointing to laws in states like Florida that penalize companies boycotting Israel. Yet the White House and State Department did not follow suit with escalated criticism.

The muted American response likely reflected something deeper: frustration within the Trump administration with Netanyahu himself. Trump's primary foreign policy focus at present is the Strait of Hormuz, where his confrontation with Iran has created multiple friction points. When Trump has attempted diplomatic openings with Tehran, Netanyahu has escalated military operations against Hezbollah in Lebanon—moves Israel justified as defensive but which threatened to undermine American diplomacy. On Gaza, Trump has promoted a peace initiative centered on Hamas disarmament and Israeli military withdrawal; Netanyahu has publicly rejected the plan in its current form. The administration has also grown irritated by settler violence in the West Bank and what it views as insufficient Israeli government action to punish it—a situation that embarrasses Washington and complicates its relationships with Gulf Arab allies who are mediating on Gaza and who regularly raise the issue in their dealings with the US.

These Gulf partners, whose cooperation Trump needs to pressure Hamas, have questioned how Washington can extract concessions from Israel on other matters if it cannot address settler violence. For Trump, the calculus appears to weigh defending Netanyahu against European criticism over West Bank settlements as less valuable than preserving his ability to pursue his larger ambitions: a legacy achievement against Iran and progress on his Gaza peace plan. The restraint shown toward Britain's sanctions, then, signals not agreement with the move but rather a willingness to let it stand—a signal that Trump's patience with Netanyahu has worn thin, at least for now.