CIVICUS discusses the call to halt arms sales to Israel with Benoît Muracciole, President of Action Sécurité Éthique Républicaines (ASER), a civil society organisation (CSO) working to promote human rights in the area of peace and security.

French President Emmanuel Macron called for an end to arms sales to Israel and stressed the need for a political solution. He criticised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s actions and warned against regional escalation. France doesn’t sell arms to Israel but has influence in the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN). Jordan and Qatar have backed Macron’s statement, and the French foreign minister travelled to the region to support diplomatic efforts to seek a ceasefire.

Why did Macron call for an end to arms sales to Israel?

In recent years, we’ve seen the rise of civil society demanding greater accountability from the government in its foreign policy, particularly on human rights issues. This mobilisation has raised public awareness and led to greater vigilance regarding France’s role in conflicts, particularly through arms transfers.

Civil society questions the government’s willingness to respect its international commitments, including the UN Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). Macron’s statement calling for an end to arms sales to Israel is a good thing, but the lack of transparency on arms transfers means we cannot know whether words are being followed by deeds, particularly as he has previously lied about the war in Yemen. By supporting a political rather than a military solution, Macron appears to be trying to avoid being brought before the International Criminal Court for complicity in war crimes, crimes against humanity and plausible genocide in Gaza.

This may explain why France has adopted a different position from its main western allies, notably the UK and the USA, which continue to support Israel through arms transfers and military aid. This divergence, we believe, is motivated by growing pressure from civil society, which has continued to intensify calls for transparency and accountability in arms transfers and denounce the incoherence of a foreign policy that takes strong positions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine but is much more timid when it comes to the crisis in Gaza and the Occupied Territories.

Could the French position have an impact on the EU and the UN?

Although France has historically been an influential power in European and international affairs, its weight and credibility have diminished over the last 20 years, for several reasons.

First, because French foreign policy has lacked coherence and long-term vision due to a lack of debate and limited dialogue with civil society. For example, following ASER’s 2018 application to the administrative court to challenge the sale of arms to the coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, responsible for crimes against humanity in Yemen, we were excluded from discussions with ministries and the presidency.

France’s ability to influence its partners has also depended to a large extent on the incumbent president’s personal credibility. Early in his first term Macron brought some hope, but his lack of coherence and maturity in international relations has come to the fore.

France’s position has also been weakened by its domestic political fragility, with a government that appears to be hostage to the far right and its refusal to appoint a prime minister from the largest parliamentary group in the National Assembly, as custom dictates. All this has limited its ability to take bold diplomatic initiatives and reduced its influence in the EU and the UN.

While France retains some weight in the EU and the UN, it no longer has as much influence on the international stage. To regain an influential position, Macron would have to strengthen the coherence of his foreign policy, restore debate within institutions and with civil society and respect balances of forces in domestic politics.

What are the chances of success of civil society’s calls for an international embargo?

The call for an embargo is a powerful symbolic goal, but it faces major obstacles, particularly the US veto power in the UN Security Council, which systematically prevents passage of any binding resolution against Israel. A change in US policy seems unlikely given the similar positions on the issue of the two candidates in the US presidential election.

In this context, developments will essentially depend on the pressure exerted by US civil society, which could try to influence Congress to suspend arms transfers to Israel through mobilisation, litigation and highlighting violations of international law, such as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, ratified in 1988, as well as US laws concerning arms export, such as the one prohibiting any arms transfer to a country that blocks US humanitarian action, as is the case in Gaza.

Beyond the call for an embargo, however, civil society still plays an essential role in promoting respect for international human rights and humanitarian law obligations. In France, for instance, CSOs, including ASER, have focused on article 6 of the ATT, which states that no state shall authorise the transfer of arms in violation of its international obligations. This means that every state party to the ATT has an obligation to stop its own arms exports to any state involved in war crimes, crimes against humanity or potential genocide – situations that several reports have documented in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Countries such as Canada, Ireland and Spain have already suspended their arms exports to Israel in compliance with the ATT, demonstrating that an individual and independent response is possible even in the absence of a collective Security Council decision. Civil society is now putting increasing pressure on the government to honour these commitments by banning the Israeli delegation and Israeli arms companies and their representatives from Euronaval, a naval arms fair. Alongside other CSOs, ASER has brought an action before the Administrative Court of Paris to demand the suspension of an arms export licence to Israel for ammunition components.

Civil society in France and in other countries that are state parties to the ATT is playing a crucial role in advocating strict application of the ATT, mobilising public opinion, raising awareness among decision-makers and taking legal action.

What are the chances of a European embargo?

While the situation at the UN is deadlocked and a UN arms embargo on Israel seems impossible, an EU embargo could theoretically be considered. It is unlikely, however, because it would run up against the consensus rule that governs EU decision-making. Germany is a major supplier of military equipment to Israel and is unlikely to support such a measure, not least because of its complex historical and political relations with the country.

For this reason, action by EU states could increase pressure on Israel and contribute to a gradual change in the dynamics of the conflict. However, it’s difficult to assess the impact of these measures, at least in the case of France, which is characterised by a lack of transparency in the export of arms and dual-use goods.

Each state party to the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide has an obligation to prevent genocide, and state parties are also bound by the ATT. In this context, every state could – and should – immediately suspend its arms exports to Israel.