International sanctions against Israel in 2025
2025 will be remembered as the year that the international community changed its approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict. The geopolitical situation has sharply brought the spotlight to Israel over its policies in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, prompting economic and political action from powerful countries worldwide. As the humanitarian crisis intensifies, Israel’s sanctions are proposed and imposed with greater urgency.
For Israel, foreign aid, trade agreements, diplomatic relations, and international funding are under pressure. The restrictive measures also affect individuals and companies, resulting in travel bans, asset freezes, and financial losses. Beyond the mounting sanctions calls, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has issued arrest warrants against former defense minister Yoav Gallant and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes in Gaza.
Here’s a comprehensive analysis of Israel sanctions imposed by key global players and their consequences for both businesses and individuals.
Why are sanctions being imposed against Israel in the world?
Israel’s sanctions landscape is shaped by several interconnected factors, with the Palestinian-Israeli conflict being the main catalyst. This conflict has entered a new phase in recent years, with accusations of international law abuse and human rights violations provoking widespread condemnation. International human rights organizations regularly publish reports on civilian casualties and the destruction of infrastructure.
Another source of conflict is the ongoing construction of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Many countries, including the European Union (EU) member states, consider this activity illegal and an obstacle to the creation of an independent Palestinian state. Finally, domestic political decisions by the Israeli government aimed at strengthening control over disputed territories also contribute to increased diplomatic isolation and the imposition of restrictive measures.
US sanctions against Israel: from settlers to organizations
The United States’ approach to Israel demonstrates a certain duality. On one hand, Washington remains Israel’s main strategic ally, providing significant financial and military assistance, as well as using its veto power in the UN Security Council to block anti-Israel resolutions. On the other hand, the U.S. administration is forced to respond to growing pressure from the international community and part of its own electorate. This leads to the imposition of targeted sanctions aimed at specific individuals and organizations, but not affecting the country’s economy as a whole.
Targeted US sanctions: asset freeze and visa restrictions
In 2024 and 2025, the United States introduced several packages of proposed sanctions. Their primary target became Israeli settlers accused of acts of violence against the Palestinian population in the West Bank. These measures were intended to demonstrate Washington’s disapproval of the escalation of tensions and the undermining of efforts toward resolving settler violence. The sanctions also affected organizations that, according to U.S. authorities, were involved in fundraising to support extremist settler groups.
The restrictions imposed by Washington are personalized in nature and aimed at isolating specific entities from the international financial system. These measures are designed to limit their operational capabilities and send a clear signal about the inadmissibility of violence. Among the tools applied, the following can be highlighted:
- Freezing of assets under the jurisdiction of the USA, which makes it impossible for sanctioned individuals to manage their accounts and property in American banks;
- Visa restrictions, including a ban on entry into the territory of the United States, which limits their mobility and business contacts;
- A ban on conducting transactions with American citizens and companies, which effectively cuts sanctioned individuals off from the dollar system and complicates any financial operations.
Sanctions policy of the EU and the United Kingdom
The position of the UK and EU member countries is traditionally more critical of Israel’s policy than that of the United States. The European Union and the United Kingdom, which has left its composition, actively use sanction mechanisms to exert pressure. At the same time, there are both coordinated actions at the level of the entire EU and independent steps by individual states that take the toughest stance.
Sanctions of the United Kingdom (UK) against Israel: visa and financial restrictions
The United Kingdom, after Brexit, adopted the UK-Israel free trade agreement to strengthen their bilateral economic ties. This partnership has come under strain in 2025 and the UK is pursuing an independent foreign policy for sanctions against Israel, which largely aligns with the US approach. The British government has imposed visa bans and financial restrictions on violent settlers and extremist Israeli ministers involved in the situation in Israel-occupied Palestinian territories in the West Bank.
These measures were coordinated with similar actions by the United States, which amplified their effect. The goal of the British sanctions is to prevent further escalation and protect the Palestinian civilian population. The restrictions apply to both individual radical settlers and organizations supporting entities involved in human rights abuses.
EU sanctions against Israel in 2025: current status and positions of member states
The EU-Israel association agreement has long governed the economic and political cooperation between Israel and the European Union. Signed in 1995, this agreement grants Israeli exports preferential access to EU markets, making the European Union one of Israel’s largest trading partners. However, this association agreement is under unprecedented scrutiny in 2025, with EU foreign ministers considering suspending it amid public pressure.
It’s challenging to achieve consensus on sanctions against Israel in the EU due to the differing positions on member states. Countries such as Germany and Hungary traditionally oppose strict measures, while Spain, Ireland, and Belgium have expressed support to restrictive initiatives against Israel. In 2025, discussions at the EU level are focused on several directions.
The possibility of imposing sanctions on individuals responsible for the destruction of humanitarian infrastructure in Gaza is being considered, as well as restrictions on the import of goods produced in Israeli settlements. Spain and Ireland have officially called for a review of the trade agreement between the EU and Israel, linking it to compliance with human rights. Sweden has also requested the European Council to sanction Israeli ministers promoting illegal settlements in West Bank.
Other proposed actions by EU member states against Israel include an arms embargo, full suspension of visa-free travel to the EU for Israeli citizens, and trade bans. However, it will require 15 out of 27 EYU member states to pass these restrictions.
Positions of other world powers: Turkey and China
Sanction pressure comes not only from Western countries. Other influential players, such as Turkey and China, also shape their policies based on their own interests and views on the conflict. This expands the geography of pressure on Israel and makes it more multifaceted.
Trade restrictions and diplomatic pressure from Turkey
Turkey has taken one of the toughest stances. In 2024, Ankara completely suspended trade relations with Israel, which previously amounted to several billion dollars a year. This decision was a response to the military operation in the occupied West Bank.
The Turkish leadership is also actively utilizing diplomatic platforms, particularly the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, to mobilize international pressure on Israel. Relations between the two countries, once partners, have reached their lowest point.
China’s Policy: Balancing Trade and Diplomacy
China’s position appears more restrained but consistently critical. Beijing avoids imposing direct economic sanctions and actively saving palestinian lives to maintain preferential trade deals, as Israel is an important supplier of technology for China. Instead, China leverages its growing influence in international organizations, such as the UN, to promote resolutions condemning Israel’s actions.
Chinese diplomats consistently vote in support of Palestinian statehood and call for an end to the occupation. Such measures allow Beijing to maintain the image of a defender of international law without harming its economic interests.
Legal and financial consequences of sanctions
The imposed restrictions create serious difficulties for companies and individuals conducting business with Israeli partners. Businesses face refusals from banks to process transactions if there is even the slightest risk of a connection with a sanctioned person. This forces companies to implement complex and costly compliance procedures to verify their counterparties. Working with sanctioned individuals entails not only financial but also reputational losses.
A common question arises: why are full-scale sanctions not imposed against Israel for alleged violations of international law, similar to those applied to other countries? The answer lies in the complex architecture of global politics.
Firstly, a key role is played by the position of the United States, which holds veto power and blocks any binding resolutions directed against Israel as a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Secondly, for comprehensive sanctions to be introduced by, for example, the EU, unanimous agreement of all member states is required, which is practically impossible to achieve due to divergences in their geopolitical interests.
The role of the UN in sanction policy
The United Nations remains the main platform for discussing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, but its capabilities for imposing sanctions are limited. The UN General Assembly has repeatedly adopted resolutions condemning the construction of settlements, annexation of territories, and the forced displacement of civilians. These resolutions carry significant political weight as they reflect the opinion of the overwhelming majority of the global community. However, they are advisory in nature and not legally binding. The UN Security Council holds the authority to impose sanctions, where any initiative can be blocked by a veto.
In the conditions of a constantly changing sanctions landscape, navigating legal requirements is becoming increasingly complex. Companies operating internationally must exercise heightened diligence to avoid violations. Timely seeking of professional legal advice on sanctions compliance issues helps minimize risks, ensure regulatory compliance, and protect the business from financial and reputational losses. Our attorneys will effectively analyze your case and defend your rights at the International Court of Justice and ICC.
