When it comes to the arms trade with Israel, if ‘the law is an ass’, the UK government may be seen in some quarters as an even bigger ass. With clear evidence of crimes against humanity perpetrated by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Israeli government, inevitably, pointed questions of justice and hypocrisy will arise with the proscribing of certain groups in the UK.
UK arms trade with Israel
The UK government is not impeding the flow of arms exports to the state of Israel, despite the warnings from a UN commission that Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to genocide.
Steve Witherden, MP for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr said in 2025: “Despite the International Court of Justice’s ruling that there is a “plausible risk of genocide” in Gaza, the UK continues to authorise arms exports to Israel, making us in potential breach of our obligations under the genocide convention, the Geneva conventions and the arms trade treaty.
The Arms Trade Treaty (2014) and the UK’s Strategic Export Controls (para 35-36), “prohibits States from authorising the transfer of arms in the knowledge that those arms or items Article 6.3 of which ‘could be used in the commission of genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, attacks directed against civilian objects or civilians protected as such, or other war crimes as defined by international agreements to which it is a Party’. Article 7(1) obliges the assessment of the risk that these items be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international human rights law or international humanitarian law, prohibiting their export if the exporting State Party (the UK) determines that this risk is overriding.”
Organisations criticising the UK’s arms trade with Israel include:
- Oxfam
- Campaign Against Arms Trade
- Middle East Eye
- Declassified UK
- Coalition of NGOs
- Amnesty International
- Human Rights Watch
- Muslim Council of Britain
- Médecins Sans Frontieres
Criticism in parliamentary debate
The government defends its arms sales to Israel in terms of their not being for military use in Gaza. But in a parliamentary debate in June 2025, a number of critical voices questioned the “sheer volume” of arms being sent at that time, saying “…the true scale of UK military exports to Israel remains unknown and unaccountable”. and that it was impossible to believe these were not being used in Gaza to kill and injure the civilian population.
Witherden was forthright: “When reviewing arms export licences to Israel, the UK must also consider violations across the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including the west bank, where Palestinians face home demolitions, forcible displacement and settler violence – actions breaching the fourth Geneva convention and risking UK legal obligations under the arms export criteria.
Former Foreign Secretary David Lammy’s recent condemnation of Israel’s actions as “monstrous” was welcome but incomplete, because the very same government continues to facilitate such actions.”
Palestine Action declared a terrorist organisation
Palestine Action (PA) was founded in 2020 to “take direct action against Israel’s arms trade in Britain”.
PA is a pro-Palestinian group with the stated aim to support Palestinian sovereignty by using direct action tactics to halt the sale and export of military equipment to Israel. Since its inception, it has orchestrated a nationwide campaign of property damage, featuring attacks that have resulted in serious damage, with an impact on members of the public. These include attacks at Thales in Glasgow in 2022, and in 2024 at Instro Precision in Kent and Elbit Systems UK near Bristol.
The level of damage, the endangering of people’s safety and the fact that PA’s actions are undertaken to influence the government for a political cause led to the Home Office taking the view that Palestine Action had “crossed the threshold” from direct criminal action into its definition of terrorism. In July 2025 PA was proscribed.
On 13 February 2026 the UK high court ruled that the Home Office’s decision was unlawful, but on 15 June, the proscription was upheld by the court of appeal, which said the ban was “justified and proportionate”.
Terrorism or ‘legitimate opposition’?
Palestine Action can be said to match the government’s description of a proscribed organisation in that it commits, prepares for and promotes and glorifies what the government defines as terrorism. The organisation has provided practical advice to assist its members with conducting attacks that have resulted in serious damage to property at targets across the UK to further its cause. Through its media output, PA publicises and promotes its attacks involving serious property damage, as well as celebrating the perpetrators.
But there is an opposing view, as expressed, for example, by the group Campaign Against Arms Trade, that PA’s direct action is justified; indeed, they point out, the peace movement has a “long and proud history of direct action at military bases and arms companies”. Further, if a government fails to stop selling arms to a country such as Israel committing “horrific war crimes”, then it is down to “ordinary people with a conscience to take action – which is not terrorism but ‘legitimate opposition’ to illegal wars”.
Justice or hypocrisy?
A worrying development emerged during the trial of the ‘Filton 4’, when they were sentenced as terrorists for their 2024 break-in to Elbit Systems UK despite the jury not having been told of any terrorist connection. This was described by Michael Mansfield KC as “a miscarriage of justice” and one that has led to harsher sentences for the four defendants. He continues, “If a court is going to sentence somebody for something which has a terrorist connection, they have to have been charged with it”. Mansfield is among dozens of lawyers who have now co-signed a letter which states “sentencing the ‘Filton 4’ as terrorists would violate basic legal principles”.
The banning of Palestine Action has been described as a case of “manufactured outrage”, yet, as Witherden contends:
“We cannot have it both ways. We cannot condemn atrocity while simultaneously fuelling the machinery that enables it. We cannot claim to uphold international law while profiting from its breach”.
Are accountability measures adequate?
A number of MPs critically debated the rigour of licensing controls.
Witherden questioned: “If it is not Parliament or the courts, who are the government accountable to for the decision to continue to transfer arms to Israel, potentially breaching international law and facilitating a genocide?”
Ellie Chowns, MP, North Herefordshire said: “…it makes a mockery of our obligation under international law to prevent genocide if our government say that they can only judge it after genocide has been conclusively proven in court to have happened” and questioned, “Does our obligation to act to prevent genocide not mean that we should stop all arms exports to the Israeli government now, in the face of the clear evidence of war crimes and, indeed, genocide occurring in Gaza?”
Kim Johnson, MP, Liverpool Riverside asked: “…is there not clear evidence of serious international humanitarian law violations, and a duty to share all relevant intelligence with the International Criminal Court without delay?”
Vikki Slade MP, Mid Dorset and North Poole said: “…some equipment, such as drone engines, may be being exported to Israel without the need for export licences and are potentially getting into the hands of military organisations…” and suggested “requiring all exported items that can be used within a military conflict zone to have a full licence, so that the public know exactly where UK businesses are engaging?”
Last year, Douglas Alexander, who was at the time minister for trade policy and economic security, argued: “We provide a searchable database allowing users to produce bespoke reports, drawing on this data, and we are committed to openness on strategic export licensing, which provides the means for Parliament and the public to hold us to account.”
The F-35 question
On the specific question of component F-35 parts, Richard Burgon MP, Leeds East, asked: “… key parts of the F-35s that carried out that attack may well have come from Britain; they clearly have done in other attacks. If we want to avoid any complicity in such Israeli war crimes, do we not need to stop these exports immediately?”
Alexander addressed this: “Exports of F-35 components directly to Israel are…suspended unless they are for re-export.” and “…we have refused all licence applications for military goods that might be used by Israel in the current conflict in line with the suspension decision. More applications were refused in 2024 than in the preceding four years combined”.
In the Netherlands, the supply of F-35 parts to Israel has stopped – why could the UK not follow suit?
Illegal arms shipments from the UK to Israel that Walloon authorities in Belgium said breached export controls were identified and exposed by a team of investigative journalists in March 2026 and were seized at Liege Airport:
“The government of the Walloon region confirmed that the illegal shipment to Israel contained items covered by UK export codes for military aircraft and fire control components.
“The components are believed to belong to US firm, Moog, which manufactures trainer aircraft components for the Israeli air force, and has a factory in Wolverhampton”.
The government may risk being seen as hypocritically pandering to lobbying, whether by arms manufacturers or others. Opposing groups, such as Human Rights Watch, may consider the government culpable in providing ‘illegal’ arms to Israel (no court has found UK ministers to be breaking the law).
Who determines the discourse?
The UK government amends one law to proscribe PA and continues to supply arms to a state whose government and military have been found by the UN to have committed crimes against humanity. History suggests that the current discourse in relation to PA may change with time – if we apply the present definition of a proscribed organisation, certain groups of suffragettes would have been classified as terrorists. To paraphrase Martin Luther King, such discourse transforms over long arcs and, in healthy democracies, injustice has a tendency to correct itself. By raising questions now and demonstrating clearly that the ‘law is frequently an ass’, our democracy can lay the foundations for that correction.
It remains to be seen what action materialises vis-a vis the continued flow of arms to Israel from the UK.
Burnham’s apology for Labour’s earlier approach to Gaza does not change the continuing reality for the Palestinian people.
Bylines Network Gazette is out!
The latest Bylines Network Gazette is out now. Become a Friend of Bylines Network or upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, and you will get access to a vital collection of citizen articles and stories.
Journalism by the people, for the people.
