The government has suspended 30 (out of around 350) arms export licences to Israel. The Foreign Secretary, David Lammy, acknowledged that the ban will affect the sale of ‘important components that go into military aircraft, including fighter aircraft, helicopters and drones, as well as items that facilitate ground targeting.’
The UK restrictions do not seem a productive way of convincing Netanyahu and his more hawkish allies to end the war
Lammy’s decision to suspend these arms exports licences under the Export Control Act 2002 did not come out of the blue and is not a huge surprise. During parliament’s summer recess, there were reports that Lammy might stop the sale of ‘offensive’ arms to Israel. On the day he became Foreign Secretary in July, Lammy ordered a review of arms exports.
When announcing the latest decision to parliament yesterday afternoon, Lammy was keen to stress that the suspension did not amount to an arms embargo. He contrasted it with more stringent restrictions imposed by Margaret Thatcher during the conflict in Lebanon in the 1980s. Lammy also made clear that the ban would not impact licences for the F35 aircraft programme and argued that, in his view, the suspension of the 30 licences would not ‘have a material impact on Israel’s security.’
The timing of this move might seem strange in a week where Israel has announced a partial localised pause in the conflict (to enable the vaccination of children in Gaza for polio) and when Hamas has murdered six Israeli hostages in cold blood.
Significant pressure is being brought to bear on the Netanyahu led government to end the conflict and bring the remaining hostages home by the Israeli public. This week has seen massive demonstrations in Tel Aviv and Netanyahu is also facing demands from his own defence minister, Yoav Gallant, for compromise.
A cynic might argue that the government’s move was simply designed as a warning shot to the Israeli government, which has been markedly poor at setting out any sort of end point for the conflict, beyond arguing for the ‘destruction’ or ‘elimination’ of Hamas.
As I noted in August, Israel is clearly winning its war against Hamas (having killed four of the five leaders who orchestrated the October 7 Massacre and significantly degrading the terrorist organisation’s fighting forces). It now needs an exit strategy.
Yet the UK imposing restrictions on the sale of arms does not seem a productive way of convincing Netanyahu and his more hawkish allies to end the war, particularly when they are still concerned by external threats from Iran and its many proxies.
If the UK is seem to face both ways on Israel’s right to self defence at this point, it risks emboldening Iran’s so called ‘axis of resistance’ at a critical moment in the conflict, where deterrence remains extremely important.
The moralising from King Charles Street may also raise a wry smile from the Israeli government. It will not have forgotten Lammy’s past as a junior minister in the Blair administration, which suffered from its own misadventures in the Middle East, leading to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq. Moral relativism from politicians – it’s a tale as long as time.
Is this move necessary? Little has changed since lawyers wrote to the government in April this year arguing that, following rulings by the International Court of Justice, arms sales should be ended.
Another potential reason for these restrictions is simple domestic politics. The new Labour government faces some difficult questions on arming Israel from its own MPs.
In August, it emerged that a group of NGOs had renewed an attempt to judicially review the government’s decision to keep exporting arms, on the grounds that there is a clear risk that they would be used to breach international humanitarian law. A hearing is scheduled for October. While a similar claim failed in February this year, even an unsuccessful court case would pile more pressure on the government from some of its restive backbenchers.
The Labour leadership may feel wary about this issue. On the same day the suspension of licences was announced, it was reported that Jeremy Corbyn, the former Labour leader, had founded a ‘pro-Palestinian alliance’ with four other independent MPs who had campaigned on the issue of Gaza. The new ‘Independent Alliance’ is allegedly already seeking to woo disillusioned Labour colleagues and already matches the number of Reform MPs in the House of Commons.
Nonetheless, yesterday’s announcement is unlikely to appease pro-Palestinian campaigners. Corbyn’s immediate response in parliament was to ask whether the ‘bombardment’ of Gaza ‘would continue unabated’ and to question the role Britain had ‘in overflying Gaza with surveillance aircraft.’ It would also be surprising if the judicial review against the government was ended as a result of this announcement.
As shadow foreign secretary Andrew Mitchell argued last night, the measures rather give the impression of ‘something designed to satisfy Labour’s backbenches, while at the same time not offending Israel.’
On the latter point, the careful calibrations may well have failed. While the export ban is likely to have little practical effect on the Israeli army in the short term, Yoav Gallant said he was deeply disheartened by the decision, adding: ‘this comes at a time when we fight a war on seven different fronts – a war that was launched by a savage terrorist organisation, unprovoked.’
The UK’s Chief Rabbi argued that the move ‘beggars belief’, and said ‘this announcement will serve to encourage our shared enemies’ and will ‘not help to secure the release of the remaining 101 hostages’ held in Gaza.
While Lammy argues the UK is legally obliged to stop some arms sales, the previous government’s approach to selling arms to Saudi Arabia suggests this decision is more political than legal.
In truth, the result of Lammy’s announcement is likely to satisfy no one. It will be seen by supporters of Israel as another attempt delegitimise the continuation of the Gaza war, while pro-Palestine advocates will argue that any steps short of a full arms embargo and sanctions are insufficient. The fact is, unless the Americans threaten to end their military support to Israel, the conflict will rumble on until a suitable compromise can be found so that the hostages can be returned home.
Comments