Quick thoughts on the main claims in this piece about HMG's sanctions on illegal settlements (which people can support or oppose but still:) The "pro-Arab, uncomfortable with Jews" characterisation by an unnamed source of FCDO/diplomatic culture doesn't hold up at all (and frankly deeply insulting) and shouldn't have gone unchallenged. "MI6 warned against it" — piece admits MI6 never said "don't do it." Caution is their job; if they'd thought it wrong, they'd have said so plainly. "Gulf states furious, pulling investment" — Gulf capital decisions track Iran risk, not Israel-Palestine. Hard to find a Gulf official who'd say otherwise. "Gulf states depend on Israeli intel via MI6" — they don't; multiple routes exist. "Ambassador gave an explicit warning" — diplomats pushing back on friction with their host country is standard. That's the job. "Powell was sidelined" — no independent verification of his actual advice. Officials advise; policy doesn't always follow. Not unusual. "This helped Netanyahu, proving the warning right" — doesn't hold up against Israeli press and polling. "E1 was just an excuse, really about Holborn" — a line in the Israeli press, but between the E1 deadline and parliament sitting, there wasn't another real window. "This will hurt intelligence sharing" — an ally cutting cooperation over a policy disagreement says more about that ally than about the policy. Also cuts both ways. Dubious anything will change.