The British government is set to defend its arms export policy to Israel in the high court this week. The case, initiated by the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq and supported by Human Rights Watch, challenges the UK’s continued approval of arms sales amidst allegations of Israeli violations of international law.
The backdrop to this legal battle is a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, where an Israeli blockade has led to severe shortages of food, aid, and medical supplies. According to the Gaza Ministry of Health, more than 50,000 people have died as a result of recent assaults on Gaza.
There are claims that Israel’s actions constitute widespread violations of international law. “Organizations like my own have documented how the Israeli government is committing an array of atrocity crimes against Palestinians in Gaza,” one statement reads. An independent UN inquiry reportedly supports these findings.
Under both British and international law, arms licenses should be suspended if there is a clear risk they could facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law. The UK government admitted last September that this threshold had been crossed and halted some export licenses for military equipment used by Israel in Gaza. However, components for F-35 fighter jets remain exempt due to their role in a global supply program overseen by the US.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s administration argues that suspending these exports would undermine US confidence in the UK and NATO. Documents submitted during court proceedings suggest that aligning with US foreign policy interests is deemed crucial for maintaining global peace and security.
Critics argue this stance undermines international obligations and could weaken frameworks like the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which Britain ratified in 2014. There are concerns about setting dangerous precedents for future conflicts where international law might be disregarded to maintain alliances.
Former President Donald Trump’s policies towards Israel have been controversial, with measures perceived as supporting aggressive actions against Palestinians. These include reversing halts on certain weapon supplies to Israel and lifting sanctions on violent actors in the West Bank.
The case has sparked debate over Britain’s “special relationship” with the US and whether it should prioritize adherence to international law over diplomatic ties. Public opinion appears supportive of suspending arms exports to Israel, suggesting pressure on the UK government to reconsider its position.
