In Israel, there has been feverish speculation about the new Labour government’s readiness to impose a ban on UK arms sales to the country. Faced with escalating tensions in Lebanon, Britain is now reportedly delaying its decision, but that has done little to calm Israeli concern about what could happen if it did decide to go through with it. Although military exports to Israel were only estimated at £18.2m last year, an arms embargo is widely perceived as an appropriate and powerful means to register disapproval of Israel’s actions towards the Palestinians.
Following the 7 October attacks by Hamas on Israel, Keir Starmer, as the then leader of the opposition, stood firm in his support for Israel and initially resisted calls for a ceasefire. Yet the British public mood has turned against Israel owing to the increasingly harrowing humanitarian situation in Gaza and the number of Palestinian civilians who have been killed. Labour has already dropped its opposition to an international arrest warrant for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and defence minister Yoav Gallant. The UK has resumed payments to the UN Palestinian relief agency Unrwa. Yet it is the prospect of Britain suspending military exports to Israel that is particularly alarming for many Israelis. UK components are used in the F-35 fighter aircraft that Israel purchases from the United States, as well as in helicopters and radar equipment.
Alicia Kearns, the then Conservative chair of the House of Commons select committee on foreign affairs, and the current shadow foreign minister, pointed out in March that Britain’s government had received advice from its lawyers stating that Israel had violated international law in Gaza, but this advice had not been made public. This placed the Conservative government under great pressure because such advice would have required it to impose an immediate freeze on arms sales, which it was reluctant to do. The deaths on 1 April of three British aid workers in Gaza heightened pressure for an embargo.
Britain’s greater readiness to impose an export ban is connected in part to Israel’s refusal to allow visits by the International Committee of the Red Cross to the Sde Teiman detention facility, where Palestinian prisoners are detained. Lawyers for the UK government visited Israel recently to underline Britain’s position that denying access to the Red Cross was a violation of the Geneva conventions. According to the Yedioth Ahronoth daily newspaper, the then foreign secretary David Cameron warned Israel that the continued denial of access could result in a Europe-wide arms embargo. Cameron also became increasingly frustrated over Israel’s lack of cooperation in allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza.
By supporting proposals to curb judicial powers, Netanyahu has given his far-right coalition partners carte blanche to intimidate the independent judiciary and Israeli officials who safeguard human rights. The erosion of the standing of Israel’s judicial institutions increases the risk that Israeli soldiers and ministers alike will be targeted by the international courts. Extremists such as Itamar Ben-Gvir, the national security minister, have given active support to soldiers involved in the perpetration of suspected war crimes. This is a sure-fire way to encourage even close allies to question their continued military cooperation with Israel.
In February, a Dutch court ordered the Netherlands government to prevent the delivery of parts for F-35 fighter aircraft to Israel, over concerns they were being used to violate international law. Since 7 October, Italy has maintained a ban on arms sales to Israel. Canada announced a similar ban in March. Israel’s foreign minister Israel Katz responded that “History will judge Canada’s current action harshly.” Yet the Netanyahu government has limited options at its disposal in countering such an embargo and would be well advised to exercise caution: Israel is becoming increasingly isolated at a time of growing peril for the country, and Britain remains one of its closest allies in Europe.
It was a different story half a century ago. In 1973, prime minister Edward Heath took pride in banning the provision of spare parts for Israeli tanks and denying access to US air force planes that were resupplying arms to Israel at the height of the Yom Kippur war of October that year. Israel was furious that Britain was selling arms to its Arab enemies while at the same time blocking military supplies to Israel. This would come back to haunt London during the Falklands war in 1982 when Israel sold arms to Argentina. Furthermore, Israel was reluctant to share intelligence with London relating to Soviet equipment that had been captured during the 1973 war. As the “Middle East war aftermath intelligence coordinating committee” in Whitehall reported in November 1973, the British would miss out on “potentially the greatest source of intelligence on Soviet equipment and tactical doctrine ever presented to the western world”.
Moving back to the present day, it is unrealistic to believe that a British arms embargo would really change anything on the ground. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, Israel imported 69% of its arms from the United States and 30% from Germany between 2019 and 2023. Moreover, Israel and the UK work closely together in the fields of cyber and intelligence. Israel has passed on important intelligence to the UK on Iranian activity against dissidents in London. Both countries have an interest in maintaining this cooperation.
On 14 April, British Royal Air Force Typhoons were involved in the successful interception of an Iranian drone and missile attack on Israel. With the prospect of direct war between Israel and Iran looking increasingly likely, the imposition of an arms ban at this time could give encouragement to the Iranians. Britain and its European partners cannot ignore the fact that Iran has been supporting Russia with drones that have been used in its brutal war against Ukraine. Cameron conceded in the wake of the Iranian attack that halting arms sales to Israel would give Britain “less leverage, rather than more”.
This can help to explain why Britain is now reportedly delaying a decision on banning arms exports to Israel. At this dangerous time, Starmer may well calculate that the UK is better served by retaining a channel of influence with Israel.
Azriel Bermant is a senior researcher at the Institute of International Relations Prague and a visiting researcher at the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS), Tel Aviv University
Comments on this piece are premoderated to ensure discussion remains on topics raised by the writer. Please be aware there may be a short delay in comments appearing on the site.
• The headline of the article was amended on 4 August 2024. An earlier version referred to “Tel Aviv’s” concern over a possible UK arms ban; Israel’s seat of government is in Jerusalem.
