The UK’s partial suspension of arms export licences to Israel ignites criticism from both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian factions

In an unexpected twist, UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer has managed to unite two seemingly opposing sides in one of the world’s most intractable conflicts: Israelis and Palestinians. This week, Labour’s decision to suspend 30 arms export licences to Israel ignited anger from both sides, creating a rare moment of shared discontent.

The suspension came after the government determined that the exported military equipment, which includes aircraft, helicopters, drones, and targeting systems, posed a “clear risk” of being used in violations of international humanitarian law (IHL). This decision was made amidst a backdrop of ongoing violence and tension, with the timing adding to the controversy. On the day the announcement was made in the House of Commons, Israeli families were mourning their dead in Jerusalem, and the parents of a 23-year-old hostage killed by Hamas were burying their son.

The juxtaposition of the announcement with the funeral rites led to swift condemnation. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu branded the decision “shameful,” and the UK’s chief rabbi expressed disbelief. Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson criticized the move, questioning whether Starmer and Foreign Secretary David Lammy were inadvertently aiding Hamas.

The Labour government’s critics accused it of political manoeuvring, suggesting that the suspension aimed to appease a left-leaning electorate upset by Israel’s prolonged conflict with Hamas. However, this approach failed to placate either side. The pro-Palestinian camp was dissatisfied, arguing that the suspension of 30 licences was inadequate given the scale of the conflict, while Amnesty International criticized the continuation of other arms supplies, particularly for F-35 fighter jets.

The decision to suspend the licences was portrayed by government insiders as a purely legal necessity rather than a political calculation. Officials, adhering to a policy established before Starmer’s tenure, made the decision based on a legal assessment of the risk of IHL violations. The number of suspended licences was determined by a detailed analysis rather than arbitrary figures. The timing of the announcement was driven by procedural requirements, with the decision needing to be communicated to Parliament as soon as possible.

Critics, however, argue that no timing would have been ideal, given the ongoing violence and loss of life. The announcement coincided with intense mourning for Hersh Goldberg-Polin, an Israeli victim whose family had garnered international attention for their advocacy. The timing of the suspension was thus seen as particularly insensitive, given the heightened emotional and political stakes.

Despite the backlash, the core issue remains the UK government’s commitment to upholding the rule of law in arms exports, a stance that has led to widespread dissatisfaction. The Labour government’s balancing act of supporting Israel while advocating for Palestinian rights illustrates the complexities faced by centre-left politicians in navigating this conflict. Foreign Secretary Lammy’s speech emphasized the goal of achieving safety and sovereignty for both Israelis and Palestinians, but such balanced sentiments are increasingly challenging in the current political climate.

With Israeli politics dominated by far-right elements that reject any compromise with Palestinians, and international diplomacy struggling to address both sides’ grievances, the UK’s approach reflects broader difficulties faced by centre-left governments worldwide. These administrations are caught between adhering to international legal standards and managing the volatile political realities of the Israel-Palestine conflict.

Analysis:

Political: The UK’s arms export policy and the suspension of licences illustrate the challenges facing politicians in balancing international law with diplomatic relations. For Starmer’s Labour government, navigating this balance has resulted in significant criticism from both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian factions. Politically, this highlights the difficulties in maintaining a stance that respects international humanitarian law while addressing the complex realities of geopolitical alliances. The backlash from both sides underscores the challenge of achieving political consensus and demonstrates the delicate nature of international diplomacy in conflict zones.

Social: The reaction to the suspension of arms export licences reveals deep-seated social divides and the intense emotions surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict. The simultaneous mourning of Israeli victims and the ongoing struggle of Palestinians underscore the profound impact of the conflict on communities worldwide. The decision, and its timing, have amplified existing grievances and exposed the difficulties of addressing such a deeply polarizing issue in a way that satisfies all stakeholders. This situation reflects broader social tensions and the challenge of finding common ground in a conflict marked by profound and competing narratives.

Racial: While the arms export policy itself is not directly racial, the broader context of the Israel-Palestine conflict involves significant racial and ethnic dimensions. The UK’s decision to suspend arms exports touches upon issues of racial justice, particularly in how different communities perceive and are affected by the conflict. The response from various groups highlights how racial and ethnic identities influence perspectives on international policies and conflicts. The criticism from both Israeli and Palestinian supporters illustrates how racial and ethnic considerations are integral to understanding the dynamics of international conflicts.

Gender: The gender implications of the arms export policy are less directly visible but are relevant in the broader context of the conflict’s impact. Women, particularly in conflict zones, often bear the brunt of violence and displacement. The arms exported to conflict zones can exacerbate gendered violence and insecurity. While the policy itself may not explicitly address gender issues, its implications for the safety and security of civilians, including women, are significant. The broader impact of conflict on women’s lives and rights is an important consideration in evaluating the effects of such policies.

Economic: The suspension of arms export licences also has economic implications, both for the UK and for the affected regions. For the UK, the decision affects arms trade relationships and economic interests tied to defence exports. For Israel and Palestine, the broader economic impact of the conflict and the arms used within it have significant consequences for economic stability and development. The decision reflects a broader struggle to reconcile economic interests with ethical considerations in international trade and conflict resolution. The economic ramifications of such policies are complex and highlight the intersection of commerce, diplomacy, and humanitarian concerns.