“Nothing can justify what has happened” | Rory & Alastair discuss Israel-Palestine with Ed Miliband

AI summary

Overview In this interview, Ed Miliband, presented as the UK Foreign Secretary, discusses Britain’s sanctions against Israeli settlers, the legality of the occupation, the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza, and Britain’s wider role in a changing world. His central argument is that Britain must move beyond rhetorical support for a two-state solution and align its legal, economic, and diplomatic actions with the view that the occupation is illegal. Miliband frames the sanctions as targeted against the occupation rather than against the legitimacy of Israel as a state. Ed Miliband, Rory Stewart and Alastair Campbell, press him on whether Britain is still thinking too conventionally about both Israel-Palestine and the wider post-American international order. - Relevant source moment: At [01:14], Miliband says Britain is trying to uphold the long-standing two-state vision while recognizing that “facts on the ground” are destroying it. Main argument Miliband’s reasoning starts from the claim that settlement expansion, settler violence, and the permanence of occupation are making a viable Palestinian state impossible. If the UK accepts that the occupation is illegal, he argues, it cannot maintain normal economic relationships with occupied territory as though nothing has changed. The policy logic is therefore targeted pressure: sanction settlers and relevant political figures, cut off British financial and commercial support for settlement expansion, and build international coalitions so the action is not merely symbolic. He insists that this approach is meant to delegitimize the occupation, not the state of Israel. A second argument runs through the interview: Britain still has influence when it works through alliances and values-based diplomacy. Miliband rejects the idea that values and interests are opposed, arguing that the rule of law is also the foundation of stability, security, and prosperity. - Relevant source moment: At [19:04], Miliband says that once Britain takes the view that the occupation is illegal, keeping the same economic relationships would be “deeply unprincipled.” Evidence and examples The interview’s strongest concrete example is E1, the settlement expansion plan that Miliband says would split East Jerusalem from the West Bank and make a Palestinian state unviable. He also cites the 2024 International Court of Justice view, the length and permanence of the occupation, and the displacement of Palestinians as reasons for the UK’s legal position. On Gaza, Miliband refers to testimony from aid workers and doctors, including accounts of delayed or denied medicines, children unable to access basic treatment, doctors being killed, and restrictions on “dual use” goods.

Alastair Campbell adds evidence from the film Life Support, describing British and international doctors’ accounts of amputations, children wounded, and the collapse of medical care. The source also names several policy and diplomatic reference points: sanctions against Ben-Gvir and Smotrich for their statements and encouragement; a planned UN General Assembly conference with Jordan on Gaza’s health and humanitarian crisis; possible extension of the sanctions regime to breaches of international humanitarian law; and cooperation with France, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, and EU foreign ministers. - Relevant source moment: At [05:03], Miliband identifies E1 as a long-standing international “red line” because of its implications for East Jerusalem and the West Bank. - Relevant source moment: At [07:14], he describes Gaza testimony from aid workers and doctors as “unspeakable and appalling.” Distinctive insights One of Miliband’s sharper claims is that repeating support for a two-state solution while tolerating settlement expansion is no longer credible. The overlooked policy point is not only whether Britain condemns the occupation, but whether British finance, construction, and commercial links help sustain it. He also argues that Britain should not outsource its moral timing to Israeli domestic politics. Some advisers warned that sanctions might help Benjamin Netanyahu, but Miliband says there is never a perfect time and Britain must make its own judgment about what is right. Ed Miliband’ distinctive contribution is broader: they argue that Gaza should be seen as part of a wider failure to adapt to a world no longer reliably anchored by the United States. They press Miliband to think in terms of middle-power alliances, strategic autonomy, AI, cloud computing, defense dependencies, critical minerals, and resilience against weaponized interdependence. - Relevant source moment: At [18:35], Miliband says delaying action because of Israeli politics would overstate Britain’s electoral influence and “outsource” Britain’s responsibilities. Predictions and conditions Miliband does not claim sanctions will definitely stop settlement expansion. His conditional forecast is that they may make a difference if they cut off British supply lines and if other international partners act in parallel. He is pessimistic about the speed of a two-state solution, saying it is unlikely next month or next year. His more modest forecast is that a change in direction could become possible after the Israeli election if diplomacy, pressure on settlement expansion, Palestinian Authority reform, Hamas disarmament, and Israeli withdrawal from Gaza create a more virtuous circle.

On the wider world, Miliband accepts that Britain needs deeper relations with Europe and middle-sized powers, but he resists abandoning the US alliance. Ed Miliband predict that unless Britain maps and reduces strategic dependencies on the US and China, future leaders may be judged harshly for failing to prepare. Signals that would weaken these forecasts include continued E1-style expansion, lack of partner sanctions, no improvement in Gaza access, further erosion of Palestinian Authority capacity, Israeli political consolidation against a Palestinian state, or Britain failing to translate values-based language into durable institutions. - Relevant source moment: At [10:24], Miliband says the sanctions aim to cut off British finance and construction links to settlement expansion, though he cannot guarantee success. - Relevant source moment: At [14:29], he says a two-state solution is unlikely soon but that the current direction must change. Practical implications The clearest practical implication is that UK policy toward occupied territory should be made consistent with the UK’s legal view. That means sanctions, restrictions on economic support for settlement expansion, and potentially expanding sanctions to cover breaches of international humanitarian law in Gaza. For Gaza, the practical steps discussed are humanitarian pressure, international coordination at the UN General Assembly with Jordan, attention to medical testimony, and continued pressure around food, medicine, and access. Miliband also agrees to meet the doctors associated with the film discussed by Campbell. For foreign policy more broadly, the interview supports a coalition-building approach: work with Europe, Canada, Jordan, Gulf states, and other partners; deepen UK-EU cooperation on defense, security, trade, and climate; and build resilience in areas where dependency can become vulnerability. Ed Miliband push for a more formal middle-power architecture, while Miliband remains open but noncommittal on institutional design. - Relevant source moment: At [28:08], Miliband says “plurilateral alliances” are important and links Gaza diplomacy with climate security and AI as major security challenges. Caveats and open questions Miliband is careful about legal terminology. He uses “ethnic cleansing” for settler violence in the West Bank and “increasing evidence of war crimes” in Gaza, but says the UK government should use the term genocide only after a court or the International Court of Justice reaches a determination.

There are unresolved questions about effectiveness. The interview does not prove that British sanctions will materially alter Israeli government behavior, stop settlement expansion, or revive a viable two-state process; Miliband presents them as necessary and potentially useful, not sufficient. The distinction between Israel, the Israeli government, settlers, and the occupation is central to Miliband’s position, but Ed Miliband challenge whether that distinction can hold in practice when state policy, military protection, and settlement expansion are intertwined. There is also an alternative explanation, raised indirectly, that the move responds to domestic and international public pressure, though Miliband insists it was taken because it was morally right. - Relevant source moment: At [20:16], Miliband explains why he is not using the term genocide without a court determination. Key takeaways The interview presents a case for moving from declaratory diplomacy to legal and economic consequences. Miliband’s claim is that Britain cannot credibly support a two-state solution while treating an illegal occupation as economically normal. The strongest evidence offered concerns E1, the ICJ context, settler violence, Palestinian displacement, and medical testimony from Gaza. The practical agenda is targeted sanctions, humanitarian diplomacy, coalition-building, and possible expansion of sanctions related to international humanitarian law. The largest unresolved issue is whether these measures are enough for the scale of the crisis. Ed Miliband argue that the same problem appears in Britain’s wider foreign policy: a changed world may require not just better positions, but new alliances and institutions capable of reducing dependence on both the US and China.