Main Edition
US
FR
September 4, 2024 - 7:00am
The United Kingdom has become the first European country to announce it will suspend 30 export licenses to Israel for arms used in its war in Gaza. Foreign Secretary David Lammy told the House of Commons on Monday that while the Government “could not arbitrate on whether Israel has breached international humanitarian law”, there was a “clear risk” that British arms exports “might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation”.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded, condemning the decision: “Instead of standing with Israel, a fellow democracy defending itself against barbarism, Britain’s misguided decision will only embolden Hamas.” Conservative opposition figures, including Boris Johnson, echoed Netanyahu’s criticism, as did Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, who posted on X that it “beggars belief […] at a time when Israel is fighting a war for its very survival on seven fronts forced upon it on the 7th October”.
The Labour government’s decision is, however, not unprecedented, nor is it catastrophic for Israel. Previous administrations led by Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have all imposed similar restrictions during past Israeli military campaigns. British companies currently hold 350 export licenses to Israel, and British defence exports to Israel amounted to just £18 million in 2023, down from £42 million in 2022. What’s more, British exports to Israel account for only 0.02% of Israel’s total military imports, far less than contributions from Italy, Germany, and the United States.
Critically, the suspension did not include components for F-35 fighter jets — part of a multilateral programme involving the United States — that have been used in Gaza. In a speech at Policy Exchange on 29 August, a former national security advisor to Donald Trump, Robert O’Brien, warned that a suspension of British cooperation “has the potential to tear open the special relationship”.
Nevertheless, Britain’s decision carries symbolic weight and reflects the new government’s evolving stance on the Middle East conflict and its commitment to adhering to international legal frameworks in foreign policy. Although the announcement came a day after the discovery of the bodies of six Israeli hostages, the Labour Party has been scrutinising British defence exports to Israel for months.
In April, while serving as the shadow foreign secretary, Lammy urged the Conservative government to release its legal justification for continuing to grant export licenses and pledged that Labour would reassess the process if it came into power. But with Keir Starmer cancelling the appointment of Gwyn Jenkins as national security adviser and expanding the defence review, Labour is now getting started on foreign policy. The Government has also restored funding to UNRWA, the Palestinian refugee agency, and reversed its opposition to the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant for Netanyahu.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThe Iran deal, Iran’s Ring of Fire around Israel and October 7 are the catastrophic legacy of the Obama/Biden/Harris presidencies. Halting weapons support for Israel will throw petrol on that dumpster fire of a legacy.
The UK Starmer government has the courage of a mouse. It knows that its arms suspension gesture is empty but symbolic, betting that its anti-Israel constituency will be appeased, for now, with symbolic gestures.
Historically, decisive victories lead to long lasting peace. Now is the moment for Israel’s allies to provide substantial and symbolic support to douse the Ring of Fire. Alas, lacking the wit and courage required for victory, those allies prefer “deals” that hover between a real settlement and further escalation.
A man kills your wife, then hides behind his wife. What do you do?
Option 1) You shoot him dead, and his wife may tragically be killed.
Option 2) You let him go free, likely to go out and kill again, and again, and again.
Which do you choose? Which is the “most moral option”? What would England do? What would YOU do?
“while the Government “could not arbitrate on whether Israel has breached international humanitarian law”, there was a “clear risk” that British arms exports “might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation”.
Interesting, “Might be used …” Very similar to the law in England jumping on social media messages that might lead to some trouble. Once again, guilty before actually acting in an unlawful way.
When I contemplate the reality of armaments being used to commit a human rights violation I am inclined to think that avoiding this possibility of this happening is a worthy goal.
“a human rights violation”
Which one are you referring to?
Misgendering, obviously !
Meanwhile the UK, amongst others, provides material aid to the Palestinians, and therefore HAMAS, through the auspices of UNWRA, thus ensuring one of the levers to put pressure on HAMAS to end the fighting, the suffering of the Palestinian people is squandered.
Stop supporting terrorists !
I applaud Britain’s funding for UNWRA. God knows, the Palestinians are in desperate need of aid from the world – Netanyahu and his government have done their utmost to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians, and, when that didn’t work because other Arab nations refused to take them, to kill them. You say that pressure needs to be put on HAMAS to what, surrender to the Israeli government? Would you be satisfied if their leaders gave themselves up? Would you be ok with turning over leaders of the Israeli government who have ordered and overseen the murder of over 40,000 Palestinians? How about turning them all over to the ICJ?
If the Israelis actually wished ethnically cleanse or commit genocide against the Palestinians they could have succeeded by now! The 40,000 figure is Hamas propaganda and nonsense, but in any case civilians dying in a war (that their political leadership launched) are not being “murdered”. Do you think German citizens in World War 2 were being murdered by the Allies.
The tragedy is that every turn one side or another on the Muslim Arab anti Zionist side has always rejected Israel’s right to exist within any boundaries whatever. And for the first half of his existence Israel had social democratic, not right wing governments! This rejectionist role is currently being taken by Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel’s enemies have fought to destroy the world’s only Jewish state on numerous occasions, and, fortunately, lost. Israel is a small scrap of territory vs millions of square miles the Middle Eastern Muslims have. If Israel did not exist we can clearly see what would replace it another corrupt authoritarian Sunni (or even possibly Shia) dictatorship of one kind or another. Where of course the Jews would have no place.
The Palestinians leadership also rejected peace deals which could have been the basis for future peaceful accommodation. They were not everything they asked for but most of it. Compare that to the Anglo Irish treaty which provided the basis for a fully independent Ireland to emerge. The Palestinians have terrible leaders, who resorted to terrorism very early for example hijacking planes and indeed murdering Israeli athletes.
But yes eventually after endless suicide bombings and rocket attacks, which have never ceased, Israeli political and public opinion has hardened against the Palestinians and any concept that there could be accommodation with them. That’s supposed to be quite so understanding of your enemy, if your city was being attacked on a daily basis for example by Irish terrorists.
Applauding
Complete nonsense
Nice timing. Announcing this right right around the the time Hamas executed six hostages just looks so good. Not only that, in practical terms this will have little effect other than feeling like a betrayal to some and way too late for others. What a clown show.
I didn’t read past the headline. Statement of the bleeding obvious. This is not what I pay a subscription to Unherd for.
I’m sorry, but even you are very dissatisfied, it’s not the reason to inform everybody here. Unsubscribe and find an other way to spend your money. Finally you are not Michelin‘s expert 😉
You should always read past the headline! Headlines are often misleading.