top of page
Search

Arms Embargos to Israel: The UK must go further

The Wilberforce Society Cambridge
Jan 148 min read

Gwen Beetham

 

Introduction

On the 2nd of September 2024, David Lammy finally announced that Britain would suspend some arms sales to Israel. This came after a government review into Israel’s actions in Gaza determined that some British items were at risk of being used “in violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL)”.[1] This was the product of tireless campaigning from a variety of groups and should be celebrated as Britain taking a stand against Israel and the Israeli Defence Force’s (IDF) actions in Palestine. This suspension is vital as in January 2024 the International Court of Justice accused Israel of acts which were “genocidal in character”, and stated Palestinians were at “imminent risk of irreparable prejudice” in regard to their rights under the Genocide Convention.[2]

However, the British suspension only covers 30 out of a total 350 arms export licences that Britain has with Israel. The licences excluded from the suspension include equipment not being used in the current conflict, non-military items, and crucially, components of F-35 strike fighter jets. With the continued IDF bombing, ground invasions and forced displacement of millions in Occupied Palestinian territories, more needs to be done. Britain should commit to a full arms embargo against Israel in response to its continuous violations of IHL or at the very least should ban British made components of F-35 jets going to the Israeli air force and being used in acts of genocide.

 

A full arms embargo

To understand how vital it is that the British government act to impose a full arms embargo on Israel, we only need to look at how devastating and - crucially - illegal the IDF’s actions have been in Gaza over the last year. A report by The Lancet estimated a conservative death toll of 186,000 Palestinians from October 2023 to June 2024, which is 7.9% of Gaza’s total population. This estimate considered both the deaths directly caused by the IDF’s bombing of Gaza but also the indirect deaths caused by the subsequent severe shortages of shelter, food, healthcare, aid, and water.[3] The IDF’s actions have been described by Amnesty International as indicative of Israel’s “genocidal intent” to “physically destroy Palestinians in Gaza”, and therefore violate the 1948 Genocide Convention and wider IHL.[4]

In response to all of this, various groups and experts have called for a full arms embargo. An open letter to the British government, signed by over 1,000 British lawyers, including four former justices of the Supreme Court, was published in October 2023. According to the letter, “the provision of weapons and weapons systems to the government of Israel” could “render the UK complicit in genocide”.[5] The letter references numerous international treaties and rulings, including the Genocide Convention, which legally require the UK to do all it can to prevent genocide. The limited arms licence suspensions do not seem to fulfil these legal obligations, and therefore place the UK in breach of IHL.

Crucially, the Genocide Convention also legally requires nations to do all they can “regardless of whether any one state’s actions alone are sufficient to prevent genocide”.[6] This disregards claims, such as that lobbied by The Times in April, that an arms embargo against Israel is pointless as Britain only provides 0.9% of Israeli weapons purchases compared to other nations, including Germany and the US. [7][EB1]  

However, by continuing to sell arms to Israel, the UK is not only violating IHL, but also its own Strategic Export Licencing Criteria (SELC), which regulates the UK’s arms export regime. The criteria critically states that licences should be suspended if “items might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of IHL”.[8] This suggests it would cover any items which “might” be used to make the act of genocide easier, not just items which are directly proven to be used in violation of IHL. The licence suspensions should not be limited to just weapons but also wider military aid, which support and facilitate the IDF and its illegal actions. Therefore, according to the government’s own standards, the UK should commit to a full arms embargo.

By imposing an arms embargo, Britain would not be alone. Instead it would be following a precedent set by Spain - who enforced a total arms embargo in 2023, including cancelling a multi-million-euro ammunition deal, the Netherlands – who ended arms shipments at the beginning of 2024 and Canada - who halted arms sales in March.[9] Furthermore, there is a strong historical precedent for arms embargos, especially within the Labour Party. The Labour Government imposed an arms embargo against South Africa from 1964-1970, despite previously being South Africa’s major arms supplier.[10] It was this global isolation of South Africa, including an arms embargo, alongside trade, cultural and diplomatic sanctions, which helped facilitate the end of the apartheid system. We must learn from history and similarly impose an arms embargo against Israel.

 

F-35 Strike Jets

The UK’s licence suspensions in September crucially excluded British made components of F-35 strike fighter jets. Britain is part of a multi-national F-35 programme and produces 15% of all F-35s globally.[11] Whilst direct shipments of F-35 components to Israel have been banned, British made components are still ending up in Israeli jets, just now via the US.[12]

There is also now confirmed evidence linking an Israeli F-35 fighter jet to a specific attack on a village in Rafah, which violated IHL. Al-Mawasi was one of the only supposed ‘safe zones’ declared by the IDF and was bombed by an Israeli F-35 jet carrying 3 2000lb bombs on the 13th of July 2024. The target of the attack was Mohammed Deif, the head of Hamas’s military wing. Whilst it was successful in killing its target, the attack involved bombing a densely populated civilian ‘safe zone’ that had a temporary refugee camp filled with thousands of displaced people, fleeing northern Gaza. This attack killed 90 people, injured at least 300, and bombed tents, a food kitchen and a desalination plant, one of the only sources of clean drinking water for this camp.[13]

Marc Schack, a Professor of International Law at the University of Copenhagen, recognises that it is a war crime for Hamas leaders to hide amongst civilians for protection[EB2] . However, Schack states that this does not give the IDF legal protection to bomb a civilian village and refugee camp in response, an attack which he argues violated the IHL principles of distinction and proportionality.[14]

Article 51 of the Geneva Convention prohibits attacks which “strike military objectives and civilians… without distinction” which the indiscriminate carpet bombing of a refugee camp surely violates. [15] Furthermore, the International Committee of the Red Cross describes a breach of the IHL principle of proportionality as an attack which “will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians… which would be clearly excessive in relation to the… direct overall military advantage”.[16] We must consider if the murder of 90 people, the injury sustained to 300, and the unknown further deaths and suffering caused by bombing a refugee camp is excessive or proportional to the military advantage gained through the death of one Hamas leader.

The attack on Al-Mawasi might be the first confirmed case linking partially British-made F-35s to civilian casualties and the violation of IHL principles in Gaza. But it is almost certainly not the only time Israeli F-35s have been used for this purpose and neither will it be the last. This proves that British arms are directly being used in attacks on Gaza and therefore make the UK complicit in genocide and in breach of IHL. Thus, F-35 component shipments via the US should be banned.

Why has the UK refused to commit to a full arms embargo? To ban F-35 compartments making their way to Israel via secondary nations, Britain would have to disrupt the global supply chain of F-35s. The F-35 production programme, according to Lockheed Martin, supports 20,000 jobs in the UK through major UK defence companies including BAE Systems and Rolls-Royce, as well as adding £45.2 billion to the UK economy in gross value.[17] In addition to the economic benefit, supporters of the programme have emphasised how it upholds western military hegemony against the threat of Russia and China, especially through NATO. Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds stated that “maintaining the F-35 programme… is integral to international security” and this could help explain the UK’s reluctance to disrupt this trade.[18]

The US is also a founder of the programme and Britain could risk alienating or upsetting this key ally. Trump’s former national security advisor, Robert O’Brien, threatened Britain in August that banning sales to Israel would risk the UK’s role in the global F-35 project, endanger its “special relationship” with the US, and could even lead to counter-embargos.[19] With Trump’s recent re-election and his commitment to allowing Israel to do whatever ‘necessary’ in Gaza, this relationship is only set to get worse if Labour continues its reprimanding of Israel’s war crimes, no matter how lukewarm this criticism is.

Yet the government were able to ban components of F-16 fighter jets from making their way to Israel in the September arms licence suspensions. This indicates that the internal review considered them at risk of being used in acts violating IHL. Surely the government are therefore aware that F-35s are similarly being used in Gaza. The government’s response when questioned over the F-35 components is to emphasis the security and diplomatic benefits of the F-35 programme, rather than to claim that F-35s are not being used in violation of IHL. By continuing to allow British made components to end up in Israeli jets, the government are therefore implicating themselves in genocide.

 

Conclusion

There is no denying that the UK government must take care to maintain its foreign diplomatic relations, especially with the US, as well as consider the economic importance of the UK defence industry. But the UK is failing its internationally recognised legal obligations to prevent violations of IHL. Instead, the maintenance of global supply chains is implicating the UK in the genocide of the Palestinian people, through the hundreds of thousands of deaths, assisted by partially British made F-35 jets carpet bombing Gaza. Kier Starmer and David Lammy must see the moral and legal imperative to take a complete stand against Israel, imposing an arms embargo or at the very least re-evaluating the UK’s role in supplying F-35 jets to Israel. It ultimately comes down to one question for the British government, what is worth the facilitation of genocide?


References

[2] “Summary of the South Africa v. Israel case,” International Court of Justice, 26/1/2024, https://www.icj-cij.org/node/203454.

[3] Rasha Khatib, “Counting the dead in Gaza: difficult but essential,” The Lancet 404, no. 10449 (2024)

[5] “UK Lawyers’ Open Letter Concerning Gaza,” Lawyers Letter, 26/10/24, https://lawyersletter.uk/uk-lawyers-open-letter-concerning-gaza-october-2023/.

[6] “Gaza/Palestine: States have a Duty to Prevent Genocide,” International Commission of Jurists, 2023,

[7] Roger Boyes, “Banning arms sales to Israel makes no sense,” The Sunday Times, 10/4/2024, https://www.thetimes.com/article/banning-arms-sales-to-israel-makes-no-sense-gfl8rqlvb.

[9] Jerusalem Post Staff, “Spain freezes arms sales and purchases to Israel amid internal government tensions,” The Jerusalem Post, 23/10/24, https://www.jpost.com/international/article-825881.

Alessandra Bajec, “Is a global arms embargo on Israel possible?,” The New Arab, 4/4/2024, https://www.newarab.com/analysis/global-arms-embargo-israel-possible.

[10] “No Arms for South Africa,” Forward to freedom, https://www.aamarchives.org/campaigns/arms-embargo.html.

[12] John McEvoy, “F-35 components sent to Israel from Royal Air Force Base,” Declassified UK, 31/10/24, https://www.declassifieduk.org/f-35-components-sent-to-israel-from-royal-air-force-base/.

[13] Sebastian Gjerding, “Danish-equipped fighter jets participated in attacks in Gaza with heavy civilian casualties,” Information, 1/9/2024, https://www.information.dk/indland/2024/09/danskudstyrede-kampfly-deltog-angreb-gaza-store-civile-tab?check_logged_in=1&kupon=eyJpYXQiOjE3MjUyNTUwMjEsInN1YiI6IjQ3Mjg3Njo4MjM1NzYifQ.7k2QM_MAdcaUS-pePhgxtQ.

[14] CAAT, “export licence suspension.”

[15] “Article 51 – Protection of the civilian population,” Geneva Convention, International Committee of the Red Cross, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51.

[16] “Rule 14. Proportionality in Attack,” Rules of International Law, International Committee of the Red Cross, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/customary-ihl/v1/rule14.

[18] GOV.UK, “arms export licences.”

[19] Patrick Wintour, “Special relationship at risk if UK bans arms sales to Israel, says Trump adviser,” The Guardian, 29/8/2024, https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/aug/29/special-relationship-at-risk-if-uk-bans-arms-sales-to-israel-says-trump-adviser.  

 [EB1]Moved this from below because applies to a full arms embargo and helps make the link with IHL violation

 [EB2]Think this is clear enough

Comments

bottom of page