US officials have attacked the UK over its new trade sanctions on illegal Israeli settlements, amid speculation that Washington could publicly rebuke the British government.
On Tuesday morning, US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee suggested the Trump administration could retaliate against Britain over its new trade sanctions on illegal Israeli settlements.
Meanwhile, Florida Republican Congressman Randy Fine warned that British companies could be stopped from doing business in Florida, accusing the UK of a "vanity project in support of Muslim terror".
Huckabee told the BBC that the UK's planned ban on Israeli settlement goods would be a "discrimination against the Jewish people". He suggested US states, specifically Florida, could take trade action against Britain.
Over the weekend the ambassador had accused the British government of "Jew hate" in response to criticisms of Israel's actions in Gaza by British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband, who is himself Jewish.
New MEE newsletter: Jerusalem Dispatch
Sign up to get the latest insights and analysis on Israel-Palestine, alongside Turkey Unpacked and other MEE newsletters
Congressman Randy Fine warned on Monday night: "As the British government considers forcing British companies to boycott portions of Israel, it should be aware that a Florida law that I passed as a member of the Legislature would ban any British company forced to comply from doing business with any state or local government in Florida."
Fine added: "It would also end any British business participating in that boycott from doing any business in Florida if it needed any official interaction with state or local government to operate (permits, tax collection).
"Florida is one of Britain’s largest trading partners. They should understand that their vanity project in support of Muslim terror could cost them billions of dollars."
Fine further said: "Any company – or nation – that boycotts Israel is boycotted by Florida."
Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband is expected to outline a raft of new measures on Israel in parliament in the early afternoon.
The United States privately urged the British government not to go ahead with the ban on Israeli settlement goods, MEE understands.
UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham reportedly briefed US President Donald Trump on his plans to introduce sanctions on Israel on Monday afternoon.
On Monday night, Israeli ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich called for Israel to sanction Britain and expel the UK ambassador over the issue of the Falkland Islands. Argentina and the UK both assert sovereignty over the South Atlantic archipelago, but the vast majority of the territory's 3,600 residents back British rule.
Last week, Trump suggested he would not back the UK if Argentina invaded the territory. The US president has not yet commented publicly on the UK's planned sanctions.
Middle East Eye delivers independent and unrivalled coverage and analysis of the Middle East, North Africa and beyond. To learn more about republishing this content and the associated fees, please fill out this form. More about MEE can be found here.
Facts Only
* The UK government is planning trade sanctions on goods from illegal Israeli settlements.
* US Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee suggested the Trump administration could retaliate against Britain.
* Florida Congressman Randy Fine stated a Florida law would ban British companies forced to comply with the boycott from doing business with Florida state or local governments.
* Ambassador Huckabee described the planned ban as discrimination against the Jewish people.
* Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband is expected to outline new measures on Israel in parliament.
* Prime Minister Andy Burnham briefed President Donald Trump on the sanctions on Monday afternoon.
* The US government privately urged the UK not to proceed with the ban.
* Israeli ministers Itamar Ben Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich called for sanctions against Britain and the expulsion of the UK ambassador.
* Ben Gvir and Smotrich linked their proposed sanctions to the issue of the Falkland Islands.
* President Trump previously suggested he would not back the UK if Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands.
Executive Summary
Tensions have escalated between the United States and the United Kingdom following the British government's proposal to implement trade sanctions on goods produced in illegal Israeli settlements. The US has responded with threats of retaliation, with Ambassador Mike Huckabee characterizing the move as discriminatory. Within the US, specific legislative threats have emerged from Florida, where Congressman Randy Fine warns that British companies adhering to the sanctions could be barred from conducting business with Florida state and local governments.
The diplomatic friction extends to Israel, where some ministers have called for the expulsion of the UK ambassador and suggested retaliatory sanctions linked to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. While Prime Minister Andy Burnham has briefed President Donald Trump on the planned measures, the US administration has privately urged the UK to abandon the ban. It remains unclear whether these threats will manifest as formal federal policy or remain localized to specific US states and Israeli political factions.
Full Take
The strongest version of this narrative is that the UK is attempting to uphold international law regarding settlements, while the US and Israel are utilizing economic leverage—specifically the "Florida model" of anti-boycott laws—to maintain a strategic alliance and protect Israeli economic interests.
This situation reveals a pattern of "linkage politics," where unrelated geopolitical disputes are weaponized to create maximum pressure. The attempt by Israeli ministers to tie settlement sanctions to the Falkland Islands is a classic diversionary tactic, shifting the conversation from human rights and international law to territorial sovereignty and historical grievances. The narrative relies on high-stakes rhetoric ("Jew hate," "Muslim terror") to bypass nuanced legal debate over the status of settlements.
Patterns detected: none
The underlying paradigm is the transition from traditional diplomacy to "transactional diplomacy." The implication is that the "Special Relationship" between the US and UK is becoming subordinate to specific ideological alignments and internal US state-level politics. When a single US state (Florida) can threaten "billions of dollars" in trade losses to influence the foreign policy of a sovereign ally, the traditional hierarchy of international relations is disrupted.
If this were a coordinated influence campaign, the playbook would involve "escalation anchoring": using extreme rhetoric (e.g., accusations of "Jew hate") to make the eventual "compromise" (the UK dropping the sanctions) seem like the only reasonable path to avoid total diplomatic collapse. The current content reflects genuine political volatility rather than a manufactured campaign.
Bridge Questions:
1. How does the use of sub-national entities (like Florida) to execute foreign policy pressure change the nature of international diplomacy?
2. What is the legal distinction between "boycotting a nation" and "sanctioning illegal settlements" in the eyes of the different actors involved?
3. To what extent does the inclusion of the Falkland Islands dispute serve as a strategic distraction from the core issue of settlement legality?