The angry Israeli response to the British government's decision to ban trade with Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank attests to how important this moment is in relations between the two countries.
Britain received the largest share of Israeli anger, but the choice of 12 countries to act collectively clearly increased the intensity of the feeling of anger.
Officials in London always knew that such a radical shift in policy toward Israel and Palestine would invite a hostile response, but they seemed surprised by the speed and severity of Israel's response.
The closure of the British Consulate in East Jerusalem, which serves the West Bank and deals directly with the Palestinian Authority in Ramallah, and the removal of British representatives from the International Gaza Support Centre, the body established last year to coordinate stabilization and relief efforts in the Gaza Strip, are extremely aggressive moves.
This indicates that Israel is deeply disturbed by the step taken by Britain on Tuesday, in addition to 11 other countries, including France, Spain and Canada.
It is worth noting that products manufactured in the settlements do not represent a large percentage of Israel's exports, but the political symbolism of specifically targeting such products and treating them with special treatment is a move that carries a strong meaning.
For decades, British and other governments have considered settlements established in the occupied Palestinian territories illegal, but have stopped short of banning products grown or produced there.
Now that Britain has announced that it agrees with the 2024 ruling of the International Court of Justice, which deemed the occupation, including Israel's military presence, illegal, British Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband has declared that the government's economic relations must reflect this position.
Accordingly, the ban was imposed not only on products, but also on companies that provide construction, infrastructure, or financing services to settlements. These measures, which also include restrictions on arms sales that “substantially contribute to the occupation,” go beyond what many expected.
The matter is not limited to the procedures themselves. Rather, it was surprising the frank language spoken by the British Foreign Secretary in his statement, which was very personal in nature.
As a "proud British Jew and unwavering supporter of Israel", Miliband spoke more directly and forcefully than his predecessors.
What is truly striking is the statement by a British Foreign Minister that “settler terrorism is rampant” and has caused “ethnic cleansing” of Palestinians in areas of the West Bank, while the Israeli government “turned a blind eye to this.”
Miliband describes the step as a "reset" of British policy, but it seemed, at times, closer to a radical reconsideration, which puts British-Israeli relations at their lowest levels in decades.
The tense and heated atmosphere that usually accompanies the approaching Israeli elections may have contributed to the violent response of Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Saar, but most Israelis will share the same sense of anger.
Many Israelis believe that the violent ideology of a messianic (religious) nature adopted by some settlers represents a major problem, while some consider the settlers a source of national embarrassment.
But this does not mean that they agree that the settlements, which were established on lands seized by Israel in 1967, are illegal.
Most will also disagree strongly with former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who last year accused his successor, Benjamin Netanyahu, of making Israel an international pariah.
But they feel that the walls of international condemnation are closing in on them, from protests at the Eurovision Song Contest or sporting events, to the issuance of international arrest warrants against their leaders, and now to bans on settlement products, and this makes them feel anxious and take a defensive position.
As for the Palestinians, on the contrary, the step appears to be progress.
The Palestinian Foreign Ministry praised the countries that took the sanctions, but called for “urgent and concrete measures” to stop Israel’s “illegal settlement project.”
In London, the Palestinian Ambassador, Hossam Zomlot, described the government’s decision as “a turning point in the relationship between the United Kingdom and Palestine.”
He said that the "courageous steps" taken by Britain would help pave the way for the independence of the State of Palestine on the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.
But Zomlot knows that the reality of the Israeli occupation that has been going on for 59 years has not ended, and has not even fundamentally changed.
Prospects for a viable Palestinian state remain extremely slim, and there are no direct indications that coordinated action by 12 countries will prompt a change in position on Israel's increasingly inevitable control of the West Bank.
It is worth noting that in 1991, the US President at the time, George H.W. Bush, and his strict Secretary of State, James Baker, threatened to withhold $10 billion in loan guarantees from the government of then Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, when Shamir, known for his extremism, refused to pledge that those funds would not be used to finance settlement activity in the occupied territories.
