‘The partial ban on UK arms sales to Israel is largely symbolic’
CIVICUS speaks with Martin Butcher, Policy Advisor on Arms, Conflict and International Humanitarian Law at Oxfam, about the UK’s partial ban on arms sales to Israel and Oxfam’s role in supporting a judicial review of the decision.
In response to civil society campaigning and litigation, the UK government recently imposed a partial ban on arms sales to Israel. However, it only cancelled 30 out of 350 licences, which civil society saw as largely symbolic and insufficient. Civil society organisations (CSOs) had challenged UK arms exports to Israel at the High Court, arguing that many of these exports contribute to war crimes and human rights abuses in Gaza. While the ban is a step in the right direction, it falls short because it doesn’t apply to other key exports, such as parts for F-35 jets that are being used to drop bombs on Gaza.
Why has the UK imposed a partial ban on arms sales to Israel?
The real question is why this suspension wasn’t imposed earlier – and the short answer is politics. The new Labour government was under considerable pressure to suspend arms sales to Israel, particularly in the run-up to the general election in July, which forced it to take this decision.
During the election campaign, Labour unexpectedly lost four seats to independent candidates who campaigned largely on a pro-Palestinian ticket, including in support of a ban on arms sales to Israel. CSOs such as Oxfam have also played an important role in building this pressure.
Once in power, Labour appointed Richard Hermer KC as Attorney General, who months earlier had signed a letter calling for an end to arms sales to Israel. So it seemed likely from the outset that this step would be taken, particularly as civil service advice suggested that the government was legally obliged to do so. Ultimately, it was this combination of political, legal and civil society pressure that led to the decision.
Why was the UK legally obliged to suspend arms sales to Israel?
Under UK law, the government has a legal obligation to suspend arms sales where there is a clear risk the weapons might be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law. This obligation falls under the strategic licensing criteria of the Export Control Act. In light of the extensive evidence accumulated over the past 11 months, together with decades of documented Israeli violations, it has become clear this risk exists. The United Nations (UN) and numerous human rights organisations, including Oxfam, have reported such violations.
In addition, article 6.3 of the Arms Trade Treaty, to which the UK is a signatory, states that if a government knows the arms it is supplying will be used in direct attacks against civilians or in serious violations of international law, the sale must be prohibited. There’s no room for risk assessments: if civilians are directly targeted, the Arms Trade Treaty mandates an outright ban.
All in all, there are several ways in which the law leads us to conclude that this suspension is not just a matter of policy, but a legal requirement.
What role has civil society played in this process?
Civil society has played a crucial role in campaigning globally for a ceasefire and an end to arms sales to Israel. In the UK, various CSOs have been active since the end of last year, campaigning through petitions and engaging in dialogue with political parties and politicians to keep this issue on the agenda. Oxfam has been a key driver of the Global Ceasefire Now campaign, alongside other CSOs.
We have also supported the call for a judicial review into the legality of the government’s decision to continue to supply some arms to Israel. This was led by the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq and supported by lawyers from the Global Legal Action Network. Amnesty International, the Campaign Against Arms Trade, Human Rights Watch and Oxfam provided evidence.
This intense civil society advocacy and media effort has been bolstered by widespread protests, with hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets weekly in London and across the UK since last October. This level of activism is unprecedented, exceeding anything I’ve ever seen in relation to Palestine.
What does the ban cover and what doesn’t it?
This isn’t a total ban but a partial one, and the details are still quite unclear because the government hasn’t provided much information. We do know that there are about 350 strategic export licences for equipment to Israel. Of these, only about 90 are believed to be for military exports, while the rest are for dual-use items – goods that potentially have military applications but are sold for civilian purposes. The government has said that about 30 military licences have been suspended, but it hasn’t given an exact number or provided much clarity on which ones.
From what it has revealed, it appears the ban includes equipment used for targeting, such as radar systems for artillery and helmets for fighter pilots, and direct supplies of parts and components for F-35 fighter jets. However, it doesn’t cover indirect supplies, such as parts sent to global supply chain hubs in Japan, the Netherlands and the USA, where planes are assembled. This loophole will be at the heart of an upcoming court case in November.
Overall, the ban is largely symbolic and serves mainly as a political signal. What would make a real difference would be to cut off all supplies of F-35 parts. Without regular maintenance, particularly in combat, these aircraft would eventually become inoperable.
What further action should the UK government take?
While the UK has called for an immediate ceasefire, it could do much more. It could support stronger action at the UN Security Council, where it is a permanent member, or the General Assembly, where its support for measures to end the conflict has been weak at best. For example, it abstained from the recent vote on the General Assembly resolution on the illegality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.
The government’s rhetoric has also been inconsistent. The prime minister and foreign secretary have both repeatedly said they want this to be a government that defends international law. If that’s the case, a partial suspension of arms to Israel falls far short. Beyond rhetoric, the UK could also take action at home, such as closing down subsidiaries of the Israeli arms company Elbit Systems, which has a long history of complicity in war crimes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. But the current government’s actions suggest it’s not yet ready to take such meaningful steps.
Civil society will continue to campaign for change. We will continue to support the judicial review process to stop arms sales altogether, and to advocate with parliament and the UN for better policies across the region – not just in Israel, but also in Lebanon and Yemen.