British Defense Secretary Responds to Israeli Criticism of Arms Export Suspension

On September 4, the United Kingdom faced scrutiny over its recent decision to impose a ban on specific arms sales to Israel, driven by concerns that these weapons could be misused in Gaza, potentially violating international humanitarian law. The UK government firmly asserted its unwavering support for Israel, ensuring that the suspension would not hinder the nation’s security.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticized the ban on export licenses for 30 out of 350 military goods. In the wake of Hamas executing six hostages, he labeled the decision as “shameful,” arguing it would only encourage further aggression from Hamas. In response, British Defense Secretary John Healey stated on the BBC that the UK continues to be a “staunch ally” of Israel.

Healey acknowledged the distress caused by the suffering of the hostages but explained that the timing of the military equipment export suspension was determined by “legal process” and the necessity to inform Parliament. The suspended licenses included components for fighter aircraft, helicopters, and drones, which were identified as supporting equipment used for offensive actions in Gaza. He clarified that the majority of other parts exported to Israel are unrelated to the conflict or could be utilized for defensive purposes.

The decision drew criticism not only from Israeli officials but also from the Palestinian Mission in the UK and various human rights advocates. Critics argued that the move fell short of fully addressing the situation and pointed out loopholes in the ban, such as the exemption of parts for F-35 combat aircraft used by the Israeli Air Force in operations against Gaza.

Palestinian Ambassador to the UK, Husam Zomlot, remarked that while the suspension of export licenses was a meaningful step, it remained insufficient for meeting the UK’s obligations under both domestic and international law. Zomlot asserted that a comprehensive arms embargo, coupled with sanctions and the equitable application of international law, was essential for holding the Israeli government accountable.

Amnesty International UK also condemned the government’s rationale for the limited ban, emphasizing that it was not merely a “risk” of war crimes being perpetrated by Israeli forces, but highlighted the considerable evidence supporting such claims.

This partial export ban followed previous appeals, made five months earlier, by over 600 British legal professionals, including scholars and former judges. These advocates urged then-Prime Minister Rishi Sunak to halt arms sales to Israel to avoid complicity in serious breaches of international humanitarian law. They emphasized Britain’s obligations as a signatory to the 1948 Genocide Convention and referenced the International Court of Justice’s findings of a “plausible risk of genocide” by Israel in Gaza.

Despite these pressures, the government’s unrolling of the ban was carefully tailored, aimed at fulfilling the UK’s commitment to mitigate the risk that exports could contribute to violations of international humanitarian law in the conflict. Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds noted that items like trainer aircraft and naval equipment were excluded from the ban because they were deemed irrelevant to the ongoing crisis.

The government also clarified that British-made components for Lockheed Martin’s F-35 were exempt from the suspension. This decision was grounded in the understanding that these parts are integral to an international supply chain for the joint strike fighter program, a collaboration among 20 nations, thus any ban could jeopardize operational capabilities for all involved.

In conveying the suspension to Parliament, Foreign Secretary David Lammy expressed regret but reaffirmed ongoing British support for Israel’s right to protect itself.