Contracts Awarded Despite Sanction Pledges

Following a British government announcement on September 8 detailing plans to target businesses providing infrastructure, construction, financing, or real estate services for settlement expansion, procurement data analyzed by intelligence firm Tussell shows that public bodies published 18 additional contracts involving settlement-linked companies. These entities include businesses and subsidiaries named in United Nations databases for their involvement in illegal settlements.

Former Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn criticized the developments, calling the continued flow of public funds to these firms "outrageous and frankly insulting to the public." The UK Cabinet Office did not respond to requests for comment regarding the findings, though it has previously stated that individual authorities determine supplier exclusions on a case-by-case basis and that public procurement should not be used for foreign boycotts absent formal British restrictions.

Impacted Firms and Subsidiaries

Among the companies identified in the procurement records are:

  • Heidelberg Materials: Three subsidiaries of the German building materials multinational secured 14 contracts worth about $14.5m (£10.4m), primarily for roadworks and resurfacing. Its Israeli subsidiary, Hanson Israel, owns a West Bank quarry that researchers noted received expansion approval in 2025.
  • Motorola Solutions: Awarded two contracts worth approximately $118,000 (£87,900) for police communications. The firm remains connected to a broader history of UK public sector awards, including extensive emergency services communication network extensions.
  • Fosun International: A Chinese conglomerate whose subsidiary, Breas Medical, secured a $131,000 (£98,000) contract with Hull hospitals, raising the group's total UK public contracts to at least $1.74m (£1.3m).
  • Egis: A French engineering group whose subsidiary, Thomas & Adamson International Limited, secured an $113,000 (£84,000) contract. Egis has previously expressed disagreement with its inclusion in UN settlement databases.

Legal experts suggest that companies involved in the occupation may be operating in direct breach of emerging UK sanctions regimes. The Cabinet Office maintains that public procurement decisions regarding exclusions are handled individually by respective public authorities.