Fifteen MPs urge the government to stop WTM London promoting an Israeli agency linked to settlement development, ahead of the event’s 3 November opening.
Fifteen MPs are pressing the UK government to intervene before World Travel Market London opens on 3 November. They argue that an Israeli agency connected to settlement development shouldn’t promote its work at the event. The dispute puts a practical question to ministers: will they apply their stated position on settlement advertising when a major international trade show is involved? A public commitment is easier to state than to enforce in a commercial setting; this event will show what the government’s position means in practice.
The three-day event runs from 3 to 5 November and includes a stand operated by the Israeli government’s tourist office. Among the organisations sharing it is iTravelJerusalem, which promotes tourism in occupied East Jerusalem and is managed by the Jerusalem Development Authority (JDA). That arrangement is at the centre of the MPs’ concern: the dispute isn’t simply about the presence of Israeli tourism promotion, but about whether a public agency associated with settlement activity can use the event to promote a destination. Trade shows give participants a platform to reach industry audiences, so questions about who shares a stand can carry consequences beyond the wording of a brochure.
The JDA is a statutory agency of the Israeli government and Jerusalem municipality. It carries out development projects across the city and has been involved in settlement construction and expansion on occupied Palestinian territory. The agency’s remit is therefore central to the argument: the MPs say that promoting tourism through an organisation managed by the JDA risks presenting its work apart from the wider development activity attributed to it. That link doesn’t, by itself, settle what organisers or officials should do, but it explains why the stand has become a test of the government’s stated policy.
MPs demand steps before the event opens
Independent MP Adnan Hussain sent Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband a letter on Monday, signed by MPs from several parties. The signatories include Labour MPs John McDonnell and Kim Johnson, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, all five Green Party MPs—Carla Denyer, Ellie Chowns, Hannah Spencer, Sian Berry and Adrian Ramsay—and independent MPs Shockat Adam, Iqbal Mohamed and Ayoub Khan. Scottish National Party MP Chris Law also signed. The breadth of the signatories gives the request a cross-party character, though the letter’s force will depend on whether ministers respond with action before the event begins.
The letter asks the government to contact WTM’s organisers and seek the removal of exhibitors and promotional material if their participation would promote or facilitate illegal Israeli settlements. It also asks what steps will ensure the UK’s ban on settlement advertising is enforced in practice. That second request presses beyond a general statement of policy and towards an account of how it’s applied at a specific event. The distinction matters: organisers need to know what the government expects, while the public can judge whether its commitments have practical effect.
Last month, the government recognised Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory as illegal and announced sanctions on Israeli settlements. The MPs argue that allowing organisations linked to settlement activity to promote themselves at WTM would sit uneasily with those commitments. Their letter says the government can’t condemn Palestinians’ forced displacement and commit to prohibiting settlement promotion in the UK while permitting it at a major London event. This is more significant than it looks: the dispute asks whether policy statements can shape decisions made by event organisers, not only how ministers describe the issue. The letter doesn’t resolve that question, but it makes the government’s response harder to treat as abstract.
JDA projects cited in the dispute
The MPs’ concerns draw on the JDA’s record of development plans in East Jerusalem. A 2025 report by the Office of the European Union Representative for the West Bank and Gaza Strip said the authority planned to evict residents of the Umm Haroun compound in Sheikh Jarrah, where about 40 Palestinian families live, and build a 320-unit settlement. The figures in the report put a human scale on the planning dispute: the proposal concerns families already living in the area, as well as the planned housing development. They’re cited by the MPs as context for questioning the JDA’s role at WTM; the letter doesn’t make the event itself the site of those proposed evictions.
Other JDA initiatives have also drawn scrutiny. The Israeli government approved a 2020 cable-car project in Jerusalem that would involve removing trees and relocating water, sewage and telecommunications infrastructure. The authority has also planned a large housing project beside the Palestinian community of Beit Safafa in East Jerusalem. Taken together, these examples help explain why critics view the authority’s tourism role alongside its development work. They don’t establish what WTM’s organisers knew or what they’re required to do, but they provide context for the MPs’ request.
Palestinian ambassador to Britain Hussam Zomlot said after the earlier report on WTM that Israeli companies he described as guilty of ethnic cleansing would be given a platform at the event. He called on the UK government to enforce its commitments and ensure those implicated in occupation and settlement activity face consequences. His criticism reflects the broader concern that participation in a trade show can confer visibility and a degree of normality on organisations facing serious allegations. (And this is the part most people overlook.) A promotional stand may look routine, but the choice of exhibitors can still carry a public message.
What the government’s response will signal
Hussain’s letter seeks a specific account of what the government will do before WTM opens, saying a restatement of its position wouldn’t be enough. WTM and the Foreign Office hadn’t responded to requests for comment by publication time. That leaves the practical question unresolved: whether officials will contact the organisers, what they’ll ask them to do, and whether any decision will come in time to affect the event. If you’re working in this space, the distinction between a declared ban and its enforcement at a particular venue is the point to watch.
The case also raises a question for event organisers: how should they assess a participant whose promotional role is linked to a public agency with a contested development record? The available information doesn’t establish what rules WTM applies to exhibitors, or how it will respond to the MPs. But the request puts the organisers’ decision and the government’s position in the same frame. A response before opening day would make clear whether either intends to address the concern directly. Silence would leave visitors, exhibitors and the public to infer how the commitments are being applied. No answer yet.
Discussion
Sign in to join the discussion.