- UK suspends 10% of arms exports to Israel, citing humanitarian concerns
- Decision reflects Labour government’s nuanced stance, differing from previous administration
- Signals a tougher position on Israel amid ongoing Middle East conflict
It seemed like quite a moment.
The new-ish government has taken a different stance on Israel and the Middle East crisis than its predecessor, the third time in two months.
When David Lammy became foreign secretary in early July, he asked for an evaluation of whether the evidence suggested that Israel’s approach to the conflict violated international law.
As I understand it, the assessment was comparable to those requested by the previous government and carried out by the same officials.
However, officials advise, and ministers decide, and current ministers have reached a different judgement than their predecessors.
Here’s how the procedure works.
Laws enacted by Labour’s previous administration established the regulations that must be in place when products are exported for military or prospective military use.
They are the Export Control Act of 2002 and the Export Control Order 2008.
As Business and Trade Secretary Jonathan Reynolds stated, “Following a rigorous process by the UK’s legal obligations, the UK Government has concluded that there is a clear risk that military exports to Israel, where used for military operations in Gaza, may be used in serious violations of international humanitarian law.
You can read Mr Reynolds’ entire written comment here. The government’s summary of its own reasoning is here.
It is essential to maintain a sense of proportion throughout this.
Of the approximately 350 weaponry exports to Israel, about 30 are being suspended, accounting for less than 10%.
In any case, the United Kingdom is not a significant exporter of armaments to Israel.
However, messages and signals play an essential role internationally and domestically in politics.
The Israeli government, informed secretly before public disclosure, expressed its dismay.
Shadow foreign secretary Andrew Mitchell, who was deputy foreign secretary in the previous Conservative government until earlier this summer, was initially uncritical but later became critical, saying the move had “all the appearance of something designed to satisfy Labour’s backbenches while not offending Israel, an ally in the Middle East.” “I fear it will fail on both counts.”
Given the judgement reached, senior government officials claim they are legally obligated to suspend these export licenses.
However, they attempt to alleviate their actions through words, stressing that the decision is one of “deep regret.”
They claim this judgement, like the other two related to the disagreement I stated earlier, was made solely on its own merits.
They represented the restoration of funds for UNRWA, the UN agency for Palestinian refugees.
Invest in your future with Webull UK – get started with free shares
Intentions to dispute the International Criminal Court’s right to pursue an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were also dropped.
Each of these measures is subtle and nuanced, but when taken together, they result in a harsher anti-Israel stance than the previous Conservative government.
For much of the last year, since the Hamas atrocities in Israel, Labour has been under political pressure from those who believe it has been overly supportive of Israel.
In constituencies with a sizable Muslim community, the conflict and Labour’s response to it frequently proved to be a significant issue for voters during the general election.
Yes, maintaining a sense of proportion and size is essential.
However, the message and signal being given are about the various choices a new government is making.
