Britain’s ban on arms sales to Israel mixes politics and legalism

Two criticisms of Labour’s decision to ban the sale of some arms to Israel can be quickly discarded. The first is that it will seriously undermine Israel or “embolden Hamas”, as Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, claimed on September 3rd. In reality Britain accounted for just 0.02% of Israel’s defence imports in 2022, and last year sales more than halved to just £18m ($24m). The bans, which cover only 30 out of 350 export licences, were designed not to have a material impact on Israel’s security. Israel can, in any case, just get the kit from elsewhere.

The second unpersuasive (and somewhat contradictory) line of attack, made by Robert Jenrick, a Tory leadership hopeful, is that it is just “gesture politics”. True, the Labour government is under pressure from its MPs and party members to toughen Britain’s stance towards Israel—even if some allies, including America and Germany, would rather it didn’t. But British ministers also have to weigh a thicket of domestic and international laws relating to arms exports.

In 2019, for example, the Conservative government was forced to stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia after a court found it had not properly assessed the Gulf state’s conduct in a war in Yemen. Officials fret about being caught out by a similar case regarding Israel, which is currently being heard in the High Court.

A more powerful criticism of the decision is that the way the government has balanced political and legal considerations is opaque. Under British law ministers have to apply a “clear risk” test to assess whether kit could be used to breach international humanitarian law. In practice, this process is murky. “It’s very rarely a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’,” explains Matthew Savill of the Royal United Services Institute, a think-tank. Ministers have to decide what level of risk they are comfortable with; data are often poor. David Lammy, the foreign secretary, said he had no choice but to revoke the licences. Lord Cameron, his predecessor, appears to have reached a different judgment using similar intelligence.

Mr Lammy’s decision may well be justified but he has not offered a compelling rationale for it. The government has not said what the 30 revoked licences are for, only that they include parts for fighter jets, drones and helicopters. The decision appears to rest most heavily on two concerns—about Israel blocking aid convoys into Gaza and treating detainees badly—but there is no explanation of how the bans would mitigate these. On the critical issue of Israel’s conduct of the war, the Foreign Office fudged its assessment, saying there are too little data. This may be the real cause of British concern, notes Mr Savill. It is hard to know.

Britain is not the first country to restrict arms sales to Israel. Belgium, Canada, Italy and Spain have already halted all sales, points out Sanam Vakil of Chatham House, another think-tank. But other countries tend to have simpler rules. Italian law prevents exports to any country that is waging war, for example; other countries pause licences while information remains patchy. Britain’s shift is also eye-catching because in two months under Labour it has gone from being one of Israel’s most steadfast allies to one of its more critical ones.

Even so, the change can be overstated. Even if Britain’s move has symbolic significance, it will not change much. Israel imports 99% of its military goods from America and Germany, which are unlikely to be swayed by Mr Lammy’s judgment. And Britain and Israel will continue to have very close ties, including in intelligence-sharing. The British army is, ironically, much more reliant on Israeli kit than vice versa.

Labour may have been keen to act before its party conference later this month; it is unlikely to want to make further moves before the American election in November. That may not be entirely within its power, however. Campaigners have said they will redirect their legal challenge towards British companies selling parts for F-35 jets, which they say have enabled the bombing of Gaza. Labour has begun to grope its way toward a policy on Israel. It is likely to have to muddle on. ■

For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in Britain, sign up to Blighty, our weekly subscriber-only newsletter.