UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy stated that the decision affected 30 of the 350 export licenses the UK had granted to Israel. These 30 licenses cover systems the UK believes present a “clear risk” of being used to “commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law.”
Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant expressed his disappointment on X, stating, “Deeply disheartened to learn of the sanctions placed by the UK government on export licenses to Israel’s defense establishment. This comes at a time when we fight a war on seven different fronts—a war that was launched by a savage terrorist organization, unprovoked.”
The Hamas-run Health Ministry in Gaza reports that more than 40,000 Palestinians have been killed since the conflict began, though it does not specify how many were combatants and how many civilians. Israel initiated its large-scale offensive after Hamas launched a surprise attack on October 7, killing 1,200 Israelis, wounding thousands more, and kidnapping approximately 250 people in a single day.
Richard Pater, director of BICOM, the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre, suggests that the decision is primarily motivated by domestic politics, with the ruling Labour Party aiming to appease internal critics of Israel.
Pater said, “There is a vocal minority which is not in Israel’s favor. But there is still tacit support and understanding in some quarters that Israel is a fighting a defensive war and they understand the nature of Hamas and by extension Iran and the Iranian proxies who pose a threat not only to Israel but to the UK interests as well.” Former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson swiftly criticized the decision.
On Tuesday, Johnson posted on X, “Hamas is still holding many innocent Jewish hostages while Israel tries to prevent a repeat of the 7th of October massacre. Why are Lammy and [British Prime Minister Keir] Starmer abandoning Israel? Do they wantHamas to win?”
Although official information on Israel’s arms suppliers is scarce, it is widely believed that most of Israel’s weapons imports come from the United States and Germany. Pater believes the UK’s decision will have minimal impact on Israel. “The UK provides less than a single percent of Israel’s overall arms imports,” he said. “However, there is significance to the move on the symbolic level. It’s not great for the relations, but there are lots of significant other aspects to the bilateral relationship.”
UK-Israel relations remain on track?
Last month, the UK Labour government announced plans to resume talks with Israel on a free trade agreement, signaling that relations remain largely on track. Israel, in turn, supplies the British military with critical systems for its air and ground forces. According to BICOM, these include the Elbit Hermes 450 unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) for long-duration reconnaissance missions, the Watchkeeper WK450 UAV, a joint British-Israeli venture by Thales Group and Elbit Systems, as well as anti-tank and anti-personnel missiles essential for urban warfare.
“Traditionally, Israel and the UK have been very close allies who share multiple agendas, and it's unfortunate that the support for Israel in the UK is not being stressed by this decision,” Pater said. “The irony is that Israel provides significant weapons, especially in terms of what was supplied to British forces when they were serving in Iraq andAfghanistan, it was Israeli tech and kits that were protecting British soldiers.”
A testament to the strong relations was the British air force's participation in a successful operation this spring to thwart a massive drone and missile attack by Iran against Israel.
“One can only hope and presume that the UK will still stay shoulder to shoulder with Israel and defend it,” Pater added. The UK’s latest move follows similar actions by Canada, France, the Netherlands, and Belgium, all of which have imposed restrictions on arms sales to Israel. Most concerning to Israel is the recent slowdown in certain arms deliveries from the US. This is not the first time in history that Israel has faced such sanctions.
According to Col. (res.) Dr. Hanan Shai, an expert in military and diplomatic strategy at the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy, Israel has historically benefited from past embargoes by shifting to local manufacturing and developing systems tailored precisely to its needs. This process, even when interrupted, has expanded Israel’s knowledge base and led to the development of additional systems that enhance its overall capabilities.
This was the case with the Israeli-manufactured Lavi fighter jet, developed after France’s post-1967 embargo, which blocked the delivery of Mirage 5 fighter-bombers to the Israeli Air Force. Concerns over future disruptions in weapons and military systems led to the project, which was later canceled due to high costs, though the expertisegained was invaluable.
“Israel has gained from weapons embargos in the past,” Shai told The Media Line. “On the basis of the Lavi, Israel produced many systems that are used until today.”
Following a British embargo that halted the use of the UK-made Chieftain tank, Israel developed the Merkava tank in the 1970s, now regarded as one of the world’s best. The Lavi and Merkava tanks are examples of how Israel has turned weapons embargoes to its advantage. These embargoes could also be temporary.
“The international system is much less moral and much more financially orientated,” said Shai. “If the systems are important enough, Israel could begin to manufacture them alone. If not, Israel could offer double the price, surely then someone would be found who would be willing to sell them to Israel.”
While the practical impact of increasing sanctions on Israel may vary, the political ramifications are more significant, pointing to a growing international isolation of Israel. In the immediate aftermath of Hamas’ attack, Israel garnered widespread international support. However, as the conflict dragged on and the Palestinian death toll rose, footage of the devastation in Gaza led to mounting criticism of Israel and its actions.
Besides weapons restrictions, Israel faces genocide accusations at the International Court of Justice and possible arrest warrants for its political and military leaders from the International Criminal Court.
“Israel has failed to convey to the world that this war is unprecedented on a global scale, and this is a grave mistake,” said Shai. “The laws of war, intended to prevent the loss of humanity, are not applicable in the current conflict when the enemy, in this case Hamas, by fighting in the midst of a civilian population. The laws are intended for wars in which the goal is to cause the enemy to surrender, not for wars which are conductedin chaos.”
Hamas’s charter explicitly states its goal to destroy the state of Israel. In this war, one of Israel’s objectives is to remove Hamas from power. The Gaza-based terrorist organization is notorious for operating from densely populated civilian areas, which raises complex legal questions about Israel’s military actions and sets precedents for international law.
“There needs to be a discourse on morals of war between democracies and this isn’t happening,” Shai summarized.