Britain announced Monday that it would restrict some arms transfers to Israel, citing a clear risk that they could be used in a serious violation of international humanitarian law.
Israel's defence minister, Yoav Gallant, expressed disappointment with the measures, but rights groups argued the suspensions were insufficient.
The decision comes amid growing international pressure on Israel to address concerns about civilian casualties in Gaza. The United Nations has reported that over 30,000 Palestinians have been killed since the conflict began, with a significant portion being women and children. This has led to increased scrutiny of arms exports to Israel from various countries, including the United Kingdom.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy told parliament that the UK would suspend 30 of 350 arms export licences following a review by his department of Israel's handling of the battle against Hamas.
He said the partial prohibition included things that could be used in the ongoing combat in Gaza, such as fighter aircraft, helicopters, and drones.
Lammy stated that the prohibition excludes parts for Israel's powerful F-35 stealth combat fighters.
The decision to exclude F-35 components from the suspension has drawn criticism from some quarters. Experts argue that these advanced fighter jets have played a significant role in Israel's air campaign over Gaza, and their continued supply could be seen as contradictory to the UK's stated concerns about humanitarian law violations. However, supporters of the decision point out that maintaining strategic relationships and ensuring Israel's ability to defend itself remain important considerations in the complex geopolitical landscape.
Lammy promised a review of arms sales shortly after Labour won a majority election victory against the Conservatives in early July.
The UK's arms shipments to Israel pose a danger of being used to violate international humanitarian law, according to the report provided to legislators.
He emphasized that the suspension did not determine innocence or guilt, and that the case will be reviewed.
We have not and cannot arbitrate on whether Israel has violated international humanitarian law, Lammy stated, noting that Britain is not an international court.
Lammy reiterated Britain's support for Israel's right to self-defense, emphasizing that the suspension would have no meaningful influence on Israel's security.
The UK's decision reflects a broader trend among Western nations grappling with the balance between supporting Israel's security needs and addressing humanitarian concerns in Gaza. Similar debates have unfolded in the United States, where some lawmakers have called for conditions on military aid to Israel. The situation highlights the complex nature of international relations and the challenges faced by governments in navigating conflicts with significant humanitarian implications.
Since assuming office on July 5, Britain's centre-left Labour administration has consistently called for a ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas conflict as well as increased humanitarian deliveries to Gaza.
It has essentially taken the same attitude to the crisis as the previous Conservative government, with Lammy and other ministers making it clear that any truce must include Hamas releasing the captives seized in its October 7 attacks.
Some analysts, however, have indicated that Labour, led by Prime Minister Keir Starmer, a former human rights lawyer, may take a stronger long-term posture against Israel and how it operates its military.
Last week, the UK foreign ministry expressed great concern over an Israeli military action in the occupied West Bank, urging it to exhibit restraint and follow international law.
The UK's stance on the Israel-Hamas conflict has implications beyond its immediate foreign policy. Domestically, it has sparked debates about the country's role in global affairs and its commitment to human rights. The decision to partially suspend arms exports has been met with mixed reactions from various political factions and civil society groups within the UK, reflecting the divisive nature of the issue. As the situation in Gaza continues to evolve, the British government may face ongoing pressure to reassess its position and potentially take further action.
According to Sacha Deshmukh, chief executive of Amnesty International UK, the government's decision was a tardy admission of the very clear and alarming evidence of Israeli war crimes in Gaza.
However, he and other rights groups said that it did not go far enough, and that the exemption for F-35 components was a catastrophically stupid decision given that the jets were heavily utilized in Gaza.
This year, three rights groups sued the Dutch government over its supply of jet parts.
All UK arms shipments to Israel must come to an immediate halt, with no exceptions, including components for F-35s provided to the USA for onward export to the Israeli military, according to Deshmukh.
The UK government has faced legal action from rights groups over its transfer of weaponry and military components to Israel.
According to Britain's strategic licensing standards, weapons should not be transferred if there is a clear risk that they would be used to violate international humanitarian law.
This prompted accusations that the administration was breaking its own guidelines in the Gaza conflict.
