The foreign ministers of Türkiye and seven other countries have welcomed the United Kingdom’s ban on imports from Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, in a joint statement.

The endorsement follows a week in which Britain announced the ban, France and Canada acted in parallel, twelve states in total backed restrictions, and Israel responded by closing the British consulate in East Jerusalem and expelling British diplomats.

What a joint statement does

Joint statements are among the cheapest instruments in diplomacy. They cost nothing, commit no resources and create no obligations. It is reasonable to be sceptical about them.

They do two things nonetheless. The first is coordination: a state considering a measure learns who else would stand with it, which lowers the political cost of acting. The second is insulation. A country that acts alone can be isolated and pressured bilaterally. A country acting as one of many cannot be picked off so easily, and retaliating against all of them is a different proposition from retaliating against one.

That second point is being tested here in real time. Israel’s response so far has been directed almost entirely at Britain, despite France and Canada announcing comparable measures. Whether the same treatment is extended to the others is the question the week turns on.

Türkiye’s position

Türkiye’s involvement is worth noting because of its particular history. It maintained relations with Israel for decades when few Muslim-majority states did, and their relationship has deteriorated sharply in recent years.

Its endorsement of a European trade measure places it alongside Western states on this question. Analysts read that as consistent with a broader Turkish positioning that does not fit neatly into blocs — a NATO member aligning with European partners against a country those partners otherwise support.

Welcoming is not joining

A distinction that coverage of this kind often blurs: welcoming another country’s measure is not the same as adopting it.

Britain, France and Canada have announced bans. Eight foreign ministers have said they welcome Britain’s. Those are different acts with different costs, and the gap between them is where diplomatic statements usually sit.

The measure of whether this becomes a bloc is whether the welcoming states legislate. That is a slower process — it requires customs rules, origin verification and enforcement machinery — and it is the point at which a country discovers whether its statement was a position or a gesture.

Israel’s argument

Israel’s position, stated by Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar, is that the measures are morally distorted and constitute interference in the affairs of a sovereign state. It rejects the international legal characterisation of the settlements as unlawful — a characterisation held by most states and reflected in the International Court of Justice’s 2024 advisory opinion — and argues that singling out one country’s economic activity is discriminatory.

The consistency objection has some force and deserves to be engaged rather than dismissed: states do import goods from other occupied or disputed territories without comparable restrictions. Supporters of the bans answer that inconsistency elsewhere is an argument for acting more widely rather than for acting nowhere. Readers can weigh that themselves.

Egypt and Jordan have also welcomed the British measures.

Sources

• Anadolu Agency morning briefing, 10 September 2026, on the joint statement by the foreign ministers of Türkiye and seven other countries
• Al Jazeera, UK, France among 12 states backing sanctions on illegal Israeli settlements, 8 September 2026
• Reuters, on Israel’s closure of the British consulate in East Jerusalem, 8 September 2026
• International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the occupied Palestinian territories, July 2024
• Our earlier reporting on the UK measures and Israel’s response