There are increasing reports of violence and intimidation by Israeli settlers in occupied Palestinian territory.

Sky News chief correspondent Stuart Ramsay has been inside the West Bank, where he’s found settlers feeling emboldened since the October 7 attack by Hamas on Israel.

With the government largely supporting them, they act with impunity and are in many ways enabled by Israel security forces.

But what are the settlements, and why are they controversial?

What are settlements?

A settlement is an Israeli-built village, town, or city in occupied Palestinian territory – either in the West Bank or East Jerusalem.

The largest, Modi’in Illit, is thought to house around 82,000 settlers, according to Peace Now.

There is also a growing movement of Israelis wanting to build settlements in Gaza.

Settlements are illegal under international law and have been condemned by the UN. They are, however, authorised by the Israeli government.

As well as official, government-approved settlements, there are also Israeli outposts.

These are established without government approval and are considered illegal by Israeli authorities. But reports suggest the government often turns a blind eye to their creation.

Israel began building settlements shortly after the 1967 Six-Day War.

The Etzion Bloc in Hebron, which was established that year, now houses around 40,000 people.

Read more:
Israel-Hamas war: A glossary of terms
Israeli-Palestinian conflict: A century of war, heartbreak, hope
What is the two-state solution?

According to the Israel Policy Forum, the settlement programme is intended to protect Israel’s security, with settlers acting as the first line of defence “against an invasion”.

The Israeli public appears divided on the effectiveness of the settlements, however.

A 2024 Pew Research Centre poll found that 40% of Israelis believe settlements help Israeli security, 35% say they hurt it, and 21% think they make no difference.

Why are they controversial?

Israeli settlements are built on land that is internationally recognised as Palestinian territory.

Sky News has spoken to multiple Palestinians who say they were forced out of their homes by Israeli settlers, despite having lived there for generations.

“They gradually invade the community and expand. The goal is to terrorise people, to make them flee,” Rachel Abramovitz, a member of the group Looking The Occupation In The Eye, told Sky News in May.

Settlers who have spoken to Sky News say they have a holy right to occupy the land.

American-born Israeli settler Daniel Winston told Sky’s chief correspondent Stuart Ramsay: “God’s real, and he wrote the Bible, and the Bible says, ‘I made this land, and I want you to be here’.”

Settlers make up around 5% of Israel’s population and 15% of the West Bank’s population, according to data from Peace Now.

How have things escalated since 7 October 2023?

Since the Hamas-led attacks on 7 October 2023 and Israel’s subsequent military bombardment of Gaza, more than 100 Israeli outposts have been established, according to Peace Now.

In May, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government approved 22 new settlements, including the legalisation of outposts that had previously been built without authorisation.

Settler violence against Palestinians has also increased, according to the UN, with an average of 118 incidents each month – up from 108 in 2023, which was already a record year.

The UK government has sanctioned two members of Mr Netanyahu’s cabinet, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, for “repeated incitements of violence against Palestinian civilians” – notably in the West Bank.

The UN’s latest report on Israeli settlements notes that in October 2024, there were 162 settler attacks on Palestinian olive harvesters, many of them in the presence of IDF soldiers.

Of the 174 settler violence incidents studied by the UN, 109 were not reported to Israeli authorities.

Most Palestinian victims said they didn’t report the attacks due to a lack of trust in the Israeli system; some said they feared retaliation by settlers or the authorities if they did.

Madonna has urged the Pope to go to Gaza and “bring your light” to the children there.

In a plea shared across her social media channels, the pop star told the pontiff he is “the only one of us who cannot be denied entry” and that “there is no more time”.

“Politics cannot affect change,” wrote the queen of pop, who was raised Catholic.

“Only consciousness can. Therefore I am reaching out to a Man of God.”

The Like A Prayer singer told her social media followers her son Rocco’s birthday prompted her post.

“I feel the best gift I can give to him as a mother – is to ask everyone to do what they can to help save the innocent children caught in the crossfire in Gaza.

“I am not pointing fingers, placing blame or taking sides. Everyone is suffering. Including the mothers of the hostages. I pray that they are released as well.”

Pope Leo has been outspoken about the crisis in Gaza since his inauguration, calling for an end to the “barbarity of war”.

“I appeal to the international community to observe humanitarian law and respect the obligation to protect civilians as well as the prohibition of collective punishment, of indiscriminate use of force and forced displacement of the population,” he said in July.

Read more from Sky News:
Warning over water shortfall
Trump gaffe speaks volumes
Lords under fire over rule change

WHO chief thanks Madonna

Every child under the age of five in Gaza is now at risk of acute malnutrition, according to UNICEF – “a condition that didn’t exist in Gaza just 20 months ago”.

At the end of May, the NGO reported that more than 50,000 children had been killed or injured since October 2023.

World Health Organisation director general Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus thanked Madonna for her post, saying: “humanity and peace must prevail”.

“Thank you, Madonna, for your compassion, solidarity and commitment to care for everyone caught in the Gaza crisis, especially the children. This is greatly needed,” he wrote on X.

Sky News has approached the Vatican for comment.

Campaigners have criticised a change to the rules around declarations of interest in the House of Lords as a “retrograde step” which will lead to a “significant loss of transparency”. 

Since 2000, peers have had to register a list of “non-financial interests” – which includes declaring unpaid but often important roles like being a director, trustee, or chair of a company, think tank or charity.

But that requirement was dropped in April despite staff concerns.

Tom Brake, director of Unlock Democracy, and a former Liberal Democrat MP, wants to see the decision reversed.

“It’s a retrograde step,” he said. “I think we’ve got a significant loss of transparency and accountability and that is bad news for the public.

“More than 25 years ago, the Committee on Standards in Public Life identified that there was a need for peers to register non-financial interests because that could influence their decisions. I’m confused as to what’s happened in the last 25 years that now means this requirement can be scrapped.

“This process seems to be all about making matters simpler for peers, rather than what the code of conduct is supposed to do, which is to boost the public’s confidence.”

Westminster Accounts: Search for your MP

Rules were too ‘burdensome’, say peers

The change was part of an overhaul of the code of conduct which aimed to “shorten and clarify” the rules for peers.

The House of Lords Conduct Committee argued that updating non-financial interests was “disproportionately burdensome” with “minor and inadvertent errors” causing “large numbers of complaints”.

As a result, the register of Lords interests shrunk in size from 432 pages to 275.

MPs have a different code of conduct, which requires them to declare any formal unpaid positions or other non-financial interests which may be an influence.

A source told Sky News there is real concern among some Lords’ staff about the implications of the change.

Non-financial interest declarations have previously highlighted cases where a peer’s involvement in a think tank or lobbying group overlapped with a paid role.

Cricket legend among peers to breach code

There are also examples where a peer’s non-financial interest declaration has prompted an investigation – revealing a financial interest which should have been declared instead.

In 2023, Lord Skidelsky was found to have breached the code after registering his role as chair of a charity’s trustees as a non-financial interest.

The Commissioner for Standards investigated after questions were raised about the charity, the Centre for Global Studies.

He concluded that the charity – which was funded by two Russian businessmen – only existed to support Lord Skidelsky’s work, and had paid his staff’s salaries for over 12 years.

In 2021, Lord Botham – the England cricket legend – was found to have breached the code after registering a non-financial interest as an unpaid company director.

The company’s accounts subsequently revealed he and his wife had benefitted from a director’s loan of nearly £200,000. It was considered a minor breach and he apologised.

‘Follow the money’

Lord Eric Pickles, the former chair of the anti-corruption watchdog, the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, believes focusing on financial interests makes the register more transparent.

“My view is always to follow the money. Everything else on a register is camouflage,” he said.

“Restricting the register to financial reward will give peers little wriggle room. I know this is counterintuitive, but the less there is on the register, the more scrutiny there will be on the crucial things.”

‘I was shocked’

The SNP want the House of Lords to be scrapped, and has no peers of its own. Deputy Westminster leader Pete Wishart MP is deeply concerned by the changes.

“I was actually quite horrified and quite shocked,” he said.

“This is an institution that’s got no democratic accountability, it’s a job for life. If anything, members of the House of Lords should be regulated and judged by a higher standard than us in the House of Commons – and what’s happened is exactly the opposite.”

Public confidence in the Lords is already at a low ebb after the PPE controversy surrounding Baroness Michelle Mone, who took a leave of absence in 2022.

The government has pledged to reform the House of Lords and is currently trying to push through a bill abolishing the 92 remaining hereditary peers, which will return to the House of Commons in September.

But just before recess the bill was amended in the Lords so that they can remain as members until retirement or death. It’s a change which is unlikely to be supported by MPs.

Read more from Sky News:
Warning over water shortfall
Trump gaffe speaks volumes

A spokesperson for the House of Lords said: “Maintaining public confidence in the House of Lords is a key objective of the code of conduct. To ensure that, the code includes rigorous rules requiring the registration and declaration of all relevant financial interests held by members of the House of Lords.

“Public confidence relies, above all, on transparency over the financial interests that may influence members’ conduct. This change helps ensure the rules regarding registration of interests are understandable, enforceable and focused on the key areas of public concern.

“Members may still declare non-financial interests in debate, where they consider them directly relevant, to inform the House and wider public.

“The Conduct Committee is appointed to review the code of conduct, and it will continue to keep all issues under review. During its review of the code of conduct, the committee considered written evidence from both Unlock Democracy and Transparency International UK, among others.”