UK Suspends 30 Israel-Related Export Licenses Amid Calls for Arms Embargo

The U.K. this week suspended a range of export licenses for Israel that it said are being used to ship items to the Israeli military, though members of Parliament pushed the government to impose a broader ban, including an arms embargo.

The new restrictions will prevent U.K. exporters from using about 30 licenses that authorize shipments of items for Israel Defense Force operations in Gaza, the U.K. said. The country made the decision after a review of Israeli compliance with international humanitarian law, which led to “serious concerns about aspects of Israel’s compliance.” The U.K. said there is a “clear risk that items exported to Israel under these 30 licences might be used in serious violations of” those laws.

The licenses had authorized exports of items used in military aircraft -- including fighter aircraft, helicopters and drones -- along with items “which facilitate ground targeting,” the U.K. said. The U.K.’s Export Control Joint Unit said it will be directly contacting companies using the licenses to “inform you about actions you will need to take.”

The restrictions will apply to just under 10% of the U.K.’s 350 total licenses for Israel. Most of the 350 Israel-related licenses authorize exports of items that aren’t being used to aid Israel's military in its ongoing conflict in Gaza, the U.K. said, including trainer aircraft, naval equipment and nonmilitary items such as food-testing chemicals, telecommunications tools and data equipment.

The U.K. is also not applying the restrictions to parts and components the country exports as part of the multi-country F-35 joint strike fighter program -- a defense acquisition effort by the U.S. and others to replace fighter jets among allied countries -- unless those parts are going directly to Israel. “Any suspension of those pooled parts is not possible without having a significant effect on the global F35 fleet with serious implications for international peace and security,” the U.K. said.

Jonathan Reynolds, the U.K. trade secretary, said the country announced the restrictions following a “rigorous” review, adding that to continue to authorize those exports would “be inconsistent with our Strategic Export Licensing Criteria.” Although the U.K. has determined Israel “has the capability to comply with international humanitarian law and the most senior Ministers and officials have affirmed Israel’s commitment to do so, there are significant doubts about its record of compliance,” Reynolds said.

He said the U.K. will continue to assess “Israel’s commitment to international humanitarian law,” and the country could “allow reinstatement of these licences” if Israel changes its behavior.

Speaking to Parliament, U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the “escalation” in Gaza is “deeply worrying.” He also stressed that the U.K. hasn’t made a legal decision on whether Israel has breached international humanitarian law. “This is a forward-looking evaluation, not a determination of innocence or guilt, and it does not prejudge any future determinations by the competent courts,” he said.

Lammy also stressed that “this is not a blanket ban or an arms embargo,” and said U.K. arms exports account for about 1% of total Israeli arms. The U.S., Germany “and others are much more engaged in selling arms to Israel,” he said.

Several members of Parliament applauded the move and urged the government to impose more trade restrictions. Speaking during a Sept. 2 hearing, Member Apsana Begum asked Lammy to “suspend all arms sales” to Israel, saying the country is expanding its military operations in the West Bank despite humanitarian concerns from the U.K. and others.

Lammy said the government made the decision to suspend about 30 licenses “in a measured and sober way,” adding that the country tried to differentiate between items being used by civilians and items used by the Israeli military. “I stand by the decision that I have made,” he said. The U.K. “might sell many things, but I do not think anyone would suggest that we should not sell a helmet or goggles to one of our closest allies.”

Member Brendan O’Hara asked if the U.K. has determined there’s a risk the Israeli military may use U.K. exports to violate humanitarian law, why hasn’t the U.K. “imposed a blanket ban on Israel until that risk has gone away completely?”

Lammy noted that Israel still faces “real threats” from terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and the Yemen-based Houthis (see 2408080016) and should be allowed to defend itself.

“We have one of the most robust export licensing regimes in the world,” he said, which “requires us to make an assessment of the clear risk in the theatre of conflict” in Gaza. That assessment doesn’t apply to “the real threats that Israel faces from Lebanese Hezbollah” and “what the Houthis are doing in the Red Sea.”