Will the UK stop selling arms to Israel?

Pressure has been mounting on the British government to suspend arms sales to Israel throughout the Gaza war.

In March, the UK government was advised by its lawyers that Israel was violating international law in Gaza, but failed to announce it publicly. Calls to suspend arms sales grew even louder after Israel killed seven NGO workers in April, three of whom were British citizens.

Following the incident, more than 600 British jurists, including three retired judges, addressed an open letter to then Conservative prime minister Rishi Sunak saying the UK would be violating international law if weapons sales continued. No action, however, was taken.

Since Labour came to power debate around the issue has continued, with the UK Foreign Office ordering a review of Israel’s use of British weapons in alleged war crimes in Gaza. The legal advice received by the Conservative government on arms sales to Israel has still not been published.

Last week, it was reported that the decision to ban exports may be delayed until later this summer as the government determines which specific arms can be linked to suspected war crimes in the ongoing Israeli war. Reports this week saying the processing of arms export licences for sales to Israel had been suspended pending the government’s review added further ambiguity.

The Department for Business and Trade spokesperson responded by saying "there has been no change to our approach to export licences to Israel". 

Talking to The New Arab, Anna Stavrianakis, professor of international relations at the University of Sussex, said she was very sceptical about Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s claim that he doesn’t have access to the previous government’s legal advice.

“Legal advice should be the property of the department [Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office]. It should be available from one government to the next one,” said the professor, whose research focuses on UK arms export policy and arms transfer control.

David Lammy is believed to be preparing to ban the sale of “offensive” weapons while ruling out a blanket arms embargo, stressing Israel’s need to defend itself. “It would not be right to have a blanket ban between our countries and Israel,” Lammy said in a Commons debate two weeks ago.

But the distinction between supplying weapons for offensive and defensive purposes is irrelevant, legal experts say.

“The law doesn’t distinguish between offensive and defensive weapons,” Yasmine Ahmed, UK director of Human Rights Watch (HRW), has pointed out, while reiterating that the UK government cannot licence military equipment if there is a clear risk that it might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law.

While still in opposition, Lammy had pressed his predecessor David Cameron to publish the official advice on the legality of exporting weapons to Israel. He said earlier this year that the then Conservative government should suspend the sale of weapons if they risked being used for war crimes.  

“We cannot have a foreign secretary dodging scrutiny on arms sales, which is a matter of enormous legal and diplomatic importance,” the then shadow foreign secretary told Lord Cameron.

Now in government, Lammy is under pressure from Labour backbenchers to stop selling arms to Israel. Top human rights lawyer, Professor Philippe Sands KC, has urged for the UK to comply with the recent ruling from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which found that Israel’s 57-year-old occupation of the Palestinian territories is illegal and should come to an end.  

Sands, a member of Palestine’s legal team for the ICJ case, told The Guardian that the UK should stop arming Israel in light of the court’s advisory opinion that member states should not “render aid or assistance in maintaining Israel’s illegal presence in the occupied Palestinian territories".

Andrew Feinstein, a London-based activist and author of ‘The Shadow World, which investigates corruption in the global arms trade, told TNA that Prime Minister Keir Starmer is in a very tricky position. “The main donors backing his Labour party in the lead-up to the 4 July election are pro-Israel billionaires, which makes his political room for manoeuvre [on Gaza] almost non-existent.”

The landmark ICJ judgement puts Britain’s compliance with international law to the test - either it stops licensing weapons to Israel or continues to trade arms with it and is complicit in grave violations of humanitarian law.

“The UK government’s delay in making a decision on whether to stop arms exports to Israel is unconscionable,” a statement by Campaign Against Arms Trade, Palestine Solidarity Campaign, and War on Want said last week.

“It is at total odds with Britain’s clear moral and legal responsibility not to render aid and assistance to Israel’s genocide in the Gaza Strip, its unlawful military occupation of the West Bank including East Jerusalem, and its regime of apartheid against all Palestinians.”

Chris Doyle, a commentator on the Middle East and director of CAABU (Council for Arab-British Understanding), told TNA that imposing an arms ban or at least restricting the sale of arms would send a “very strong signal” that Israeli actions are unacceptable, calling it a “test case” for the UK.

"They will try to manoeuvre their way toward a position that looks like they're complying with international law while allowing exports to continue"

“Britain has to bring itself in a situation where in no way it is complicit with an illegal occupation,” CAABU’s director insisted.

“It’s political smoke and mirrors. They’re trying to give the impression they’re going to halt weapons sales, but they actually have little or no intention of doing it,” Feinstein said, questioning the UK government’s willingness to take effective action vis-à-vis its first-tier ally.

Though British military exports to Israel were worth only £18.2 million ($23.4 million) last year, the possibility of imposing an export ban is alarming for an increasingly isolated Tel Aviv, with London remaining one of its closest allies in Europe.

The UK’s arms trade with Israel includes components for F-35 fighter jets, co-produced by Britain with the US, which are thought to have been used by the Israeli army in the bombardment of Gaza.

Ending the sale of F-35 parts could threaten the UK’s participation in the construction of fighter jets and compromise its relations with both Tel Aviv and Washington.

“Any meaningful application of UK arms export rules would mean that you don’t allow the export of parts for F-35s,” Stavrianakis said, arguing against any assertion that the military planes might be used defensively. To her mind, given the “scale” and “character” of the Israeli assault on Gaza, Britain’s arms transfers should be at least severely restricted.

Citing her paper examining the last 20 years of UK weapons export policy during armed conflicts, she indicated that British governments have, in fact, not suspended existing arms export licenses but only mainly paused granting new licenses, even in the face of violations of human rights and humanitarian law.

The arms trade expert foresees that the UK will likely opt for a minimal freeze on the sale of weapons to Israel. “They will try to manoeuvre their way toward a position that looks like they’re complying with international law while allowing exports to continue,” she anticipated.

Sharing similar thoughts, Feinstein asserted that halting the shipment of F-35 parts would be an impactful move, though he thinks the British cabinet will only restrict some very minor arms deliveries.

“There are no real arms export controls. Arms manufacturers flout laws and supply whoever they want,” the anti-war campaigner said. “We’ve seen it every single day throughout the genocide in Gaza.”

Doyle noted that Starmer’s government will have to work hard to prove that it is concerned about international law and accountability. He pointed to a poll released in April that found over half of the British public supported a ban on the export of arms and spare parts to Israel.

“We’ve seen some baby steps, but we need to see some much bigger steps to demonstrate this has real meaning.”

Alessandra Bajec is a freelance journalist currently based in Tunis.

Follow her on Twitter: @AlessandraBajec