Israeli real estate London event raises questions over settlement expansion, commerce and British policy. For Palestinians it is an issue of homeland that has remained unresolved.
By Mohamed Atherulla Shariff
What was presented as a property exhibition for people interested in buying homes in Israel has developed into a wider controversy involving Palestinian land, Israeli settlements, British charities, regulators and the limits of commercial activity connected with occupied territory.
The Great Israeli Real Estate Event, held on June 14 at Edgware United Synagogue in north London, brought Israeli property developers and estate agents before prospective British buyers. But after the event, evidence emerged that promotional material included properties in Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The event attracted substantial opposition. More than 100 British MPs and peers called for government intervention, while Amnesty International UK and Palestinian rights organisations also criticised the event.
The organisers subsequently apologised for the inclusion of West Bank properties in printed brochures, describing it as an error. Yet the controversy did not end with that apology. Reports later indicated that property promotions connected with the event continued to reach prospective British buyers, including advertisements for homes in West Bank settlements.
The episode has gained further significance as Britain has been considering stronger economic measures against Israeli settlements.
What Happened in London?
Before the exhibition, its organisers insisted that properties in the occupied territories would not be marketed. Critics had nevertheless raised concerns about the participation of companies associated with settlement construction.
After the event, brochures were found to contain listings for properties in places including Ma’ale Adumim, Givat Ze’ev and Kfar Eldad, all in the occupied West Bank. The organisers apologised for the listings but maintained that the properties had not been deliberately promoted during the exhibition. That distinction remains central to the dispute. The organisers describe the inclusion of the properties as an error in printed material. Whereas the brochures distributed at a property exhibition are part of the marketing process and that the incident cannot be separated from the wider activities of the participating companies.
In July, Novara Media reported that people on the organisers’ mailing list continued to receive property promotions involving locations in the West Bank.
A July 2 email reportedly advertised homes in communities described using the Israeli term ‘Judea and Samaria’, and linked the promotion to the Israeli property company Harey Zahav. The company has been involved in settlement construction, including in Kfar Eldad.
The issue therefore moved beyond what happened inside the London synagogue on June 14 to the wider question of how British consumers are being approached by companies marketing property in Israeli settlements.
Why the West Bank Matters
The legal context is fundamental. Israel occupied the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza in the 1967 war. Israeli settlements have subsequently been established and expanded in the West Bank.
The United Nations and most governments consider the settlements contrary to international law. In its July 2024 advisory opinion, the International Court of Justice concluded that Israel’s continued presence in the occupied Palestinian territory is unlawful and said states should not recognise the resulting situation as lawful or render aid or assistance in maintaining it.
Britain has also consistently regarded Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories as illegal under international law. For Palestinians occupied property is inseparable from land rights, displacement and settlement expansion. The London exhibition brought these conflicting positions into a British commercial setting.
Charity Commission Intervention
One of the most significant developments came from Britain’s charity regulator. The event was held at Edgware United Synagogue, a charitable organisation. Questions were subsequently raised about whether charitable premises should have been made available for an event accused of promoting settlement properties?
The International Centre of Justice for Palestinians complained to the Charity Commission. On August 13, it announced that the Commission had formally engaged with the trustees of Edgware United Synagogue and issued regulatory advice and guidance under Section 15(2) of the Charities Act 2011. But the Commission did not open a statutory inquiry. Nevertheless, the intervention placed greater responsibility on the synagogue’s trustees concerning future use of its premises.
The synagogue had previously maintained that it had hired the venue to a third party and had received assurances that properties marketed at the event would comply with English law. The Commission’s action therefore transformed the issue from a political dispute into a question of charity governance and trustee responsibility.
The exhibition also produced major demonstrations outside the synagogue. Approximately 1,000 people took part in rival protests, according to reports, while the Metropolitan Police made a number of arrests during public-order incidents and clashes.
Pro-Palestinian campaigners said they were protesting against the marketing of property in occupied Palestinian territory. Jewish community representatives and supporters of Israel expressed concern about demonstrations outside a synagogue and the safety of Jewish residents.
Britain’s Changing Policy
The London controversy has become particularly relevant because of Britain’s changing approach to Israeli settlements. In September, the Financial Times reported that the UK government was preparing measures to restrict trade in goods originating from Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank. The proposed policy was presented in the context of growing British concern about settlement expansion and its implications for a two-state solution.
The policy raises a broader question: if Britain seeks to prevent economic activity from strengthening settlements, what position should it take towards the marketing of settlement property to British citizens? That question remains unresolved.
The Bigger Issue
The ‘Great Israeli Real Estate Event’ has demonstrated how an apparently ordinary commercial activity can become inseparable from the politics of occupation. Real estate is normally discussed in terms of prices, mortgages, investment and location. In the West Bank, however, property is closely linked to questions of land ownership, displacement, sovereignty and the future of the Palestinian territories.
The London exhibition therefore raises questions extending well beyond one event. Was the inclusion of settlement properties simply an error, as the organisers maintain? What degree of due carefulness should charitable institutions undertake before allowing their premises to be used for commercial events? And can Britain maintain a credible policy against settlement expansion while companies continue marketing settlement property to British buyers?
The Charity Commission’s intervention has ensured that the issue will not simply disappear. Reports of continued settlement-property marketing have widened the controversy, while Britain’s emerging economic measures have given it a new policy dimension. For Palestinians, the central issue is that land in the occupied territories is not merely an investment opportunity but part of a homeland whose political status remains unresolved. For Britain, the London episode presents a difficult test: if Israeli settlements are regarded as illegal under international law, how far should British institutions and regulators go in preventing their commercial normalisation?
The answer could determine whether Britain’s opposition to settlement expansion remains principally a diplomatic position or increasingly becomes a practical principle governing economic activity as well.
