LABOUR ministers have been urged to stop “dithering” over technical legal arguments and ban weapon sales to Israel for good.
The UK Government is reportedly tied up in wrangling over whether to ban arms exports to the Benjamin Netanyahu regime – as ministers squabble over whether Israel is using arms “offensively” or “defensively”.
But arms sales appear to be suspended in the meantime, with suppliers receiving responses from the Department for Business and Trade saying that applications for export licences are suspended until the conclusion of an official review of the Government’s legal position, The Guardian reported.
The paper also reported that Attorney General Richard Hermer has told Foreign Office officials he will not approve a decision to ban weapons sales unless they can be said for sure to be used to break international law.
Foreign Secretary David Lammy (above) has talked of banning the export of “offensive” weapons while continuing to allow the sale of “defensive” ones – a distinction that is reportedly holding up the outcome of a legal review of the Government’s position.
Lammy had been expected to unveil the results of the review before MPs’ summer break but disputes among senior members of the Government have delayed a statement.
They are said to be concerned that the Government’s distinction between “offensive” and “defensive” weapons would not stand up to a legal challenge.
But Greens co-leader Patrick Harvie (below) dismissed the Government’s distinction as “spurious”.
He told The National: “There is no excuse for arming genocide, but Labour are dithering rather than taking action. The split between ‘offensive weapons’ and ‘defensive weapons’ is spurious at best.
“Fighter jet components, for example, are clearly not defensive when genocide is being inflicted from the air.
“Every government needs to consider their own complicity and what they are doing to stop the killing and end the occupation. The message that David Lammy and his colleagues are sending to Palestinians is that their lives are less important than arms company profits.”
He argued that it was “clear” Israel had committed “heinous war crimes against the Palestinian people,” adding: “From Genocide to collective punishment and the denial of basic human rights, such as access to water and shelter, this assault has been a moral disgrace.”
The MSP said: “The UK Government has helped to enable these appalling acts by arming and supporting the perpetrators. They are empowering and legitimising the Israeli government's immoral and illegal assault.”
Tim Bierley, campaigns and policy manager with the Global Justice Now pressure group, accused Labour of “legal gymnastics to continue weapons sales to Israel” and warned this meant “there's a real chance ministers could one day be liable for war crimes”.
Writing in The Guardian, barrister Sam Fowles said the Government’s position was that sales are lawful because it does not believe Israel is breaking international law saying this relied “heavily” on “assurances provided by Israel itself”.
He added: “There is a real possibility that the UK, or individuals herein, are guilty of aiding and assisting Israel’s proven and alleged breaches of international law.
"The truth lies in the information about arms sales, intelligence sharing, trade, and legal advice that the government still keeps secret from the public. Paradoxically, only the government knows for sure whether the UK is breaching international law.
“The UK, as a member of the UN security council, has a particular duty to model respect for the law – while the Labour government now has an opportunity and an obligation to do better than its predecessors.”
A Foreign Office spokesperson said: "This government is committed to upholding international law. We have made clear that we will not export items if they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law.
“There is an ongoing review process to assess whether Israel is complying with international humanitarian law, which the Foreign Secretary initiated on day one in office. We will provide an update as soon as that review process has been completed.”
