British Jews are angry at the government’s decision to stop arms sales to Israel

Some of Britain’s leading Jewish voices expressed concern and anger this week after the newly installed Labour government under Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced it would suspend the export of certain weapons to Israel over fears they could be used to violate international humanitarian law.

Speaking to the British Parliament on Monday, Foreign Secretary David Lammy, who stressed that he was “a friend of Israel and a liberal, progressive Zionist,” said the decision was based on an assessment that “there is a clear risk that certain British arms exports to Israel could be used to commit or facilitate serious breaches of international humanitarian law.”

“This is a prospective assessment, not a determination of innocence or guilt,” he noted. “And it does not prejudge any future decisions of the relevant courts. But in the face of a conflict such as this, it is the legal duty of this government to review export licenses.”

Although British companies sell relatively few weapons and components to Israel compared to the US and other major suppliers such as Germany, as one of Israel’s closest allies the decision has high symbolic value. It could pave the way for the British government to take further action against the Jewish state, which is fighting on several fronts against Iran-backed terror groups.

Lammy said the decision only applied to about 30 of 350 existing export licenses for equipment he had identified as being used “in the current conflict in Gaza.” The equipment includes parts for military aircraft, helicopters and drones, as well as items used for ground targets. Earlier this year, the British government reportedly said its arms exports to Israel would be worth 42 million pounds ($53 million) in 2022.

“It is hard to believe that the British government, a close strategic ally of Israel, has announced a partial suspension of arms licenses at a time when Israel is fighting a war for survival on seven fronts that was forced upon it on October 7, and at the very moment when six hostages murdered in cold blood by cruel terrorists were being buried by their families,” Britain’s Chief Rabbi Sir Ephraim Mirvis wrote in a post on X on Wednesday.

“As Israel confronts the threat posed by Iran and its proxies, which affects not only its own people but all of us in the democratic West, this announcement feeds the falsehood that Israel is violating international humanitarian law, when in reality the country is making extraordinary efforts to uphold it,” he continued, adding: “Sadly, this announcement will serve to embolden our common enemies.”

Mirvis also pointed out that, as Lammy suggested in his speech to Parliament, this will neither “contribute to the release of the remaining 101 hostages nor contribute to the peaceful future that we wish and pray for for all people in the region and beyond.”

“Britain and Israel have so much to gain by standing together against our common enemies in the interests of a safer world. That must be the way forward,” he added.

UK-based journalist Nicole Lampert, a keen observer of British-Israeli relations, said Jewish Insider that the decision felt like “a slap in the face”.

“I wonder what our much-vaunted British values ​​really are,” she said. “Have we ever meant them seriously? Because instead of standing by our democratic ally in the fight against a terrorist group, we have signalled to Hamas that we believe they are right.”

Lampert said the timing of the announcement was particularly hurtful, coming just hours after the televised funeral of American-Israeli hostage Hersh Goldberg-Polin and “a few days after Hamas reminded us exactly who and what it is through the cold-blooded murder of six hostages.”

“British Jews have had great difficulty with this version of the Labour Party,” she continued, explaining that Lammy helped put the now-ousted anti-Semitic Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn on the ballot in 2015.

“Many British Jews feel that in recent weeks it has been one blow after another,” Lampert continued. “I would be less concerned if Lammy and our government (and much of our media) spent at least some time exposing the evil of Hamas, but this is something that is never openly discussed.”

There were hopes in Britain’s Jewish community that a reformed Labour Party, moving beyond the Corbyn years, would maintain the support for Israel that previous Labour leaders had maintained. But less than a month after its election in July, the new Starmer government is already taking a tougher stance on the Jewish state.

Immediately, Starmer and Lammy, who visited Israel two weeks after his appointment, began pushing for an immediate ceasefire without conditions. Labour also announced it would resume funding to the controversial United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Middle East, despite evidence that some of its staff were actively involved in Hamas’s terror activities, including taking Israeli soldiers hostage. The new government also decided to drop the previous leadership’s objections to the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) jurisdiction over Israel.

Michael Rubin, director of Labor Friends of Israel, told JI in June that he was “confident that a Labor government will continue the tradition of strong and consistent support for the State of Israel.” He expressed disappointment and concern about the arms sales ban and referred JI to a comment he made this week for The times and a statement from the LFI.

“Since October 7, Israel has been subjected to repeated, unprovoked and indiscriminate attacks by Iran and its proxies Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. We do not believe that restrictions on British arms sales will help end the tragic conflict in Gaza or secure the release of the hostages, six of whom were brutally murdered by Hamas just days ago,” the statement said.

“Furthermore, we are deeply concerned about the signal this sends to Iran, the world’s largest sponsor of state terrorism and Vladimir Putin’s closest ally in Ukraine,” it added. “We therefore fear that these restrictions could embolden Israel’s enemies and lead to further escalation rather than de-escalation.”

Writing in The sun Philip Rosenberg, chairman of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, described the decision to ban the sale of certain weapons to Israel in a British newspaper on Tuesday as “symbolic”, warning that such moves reflected the Labour Party’s past anti-Semitism and represented a capitulation to terror.

“After the export ban was announced, I met with Secretary of State David Lammy and Attorney General Richard Hermer,” Rosenberg wrote in the article. “They told us that, among other things, they would no longer send drones. These are an indispensable tool in the search for hostages held by Hamas and other terrorist organizations in houses and tunnels throughout the Gaza Strip.”

“It makes no sense to hinder this humanitarian operation that the government claims to be supporting,” he continued, noting that the government defends the ban by arguing that it represents only 10 percent of British arms exports to Israel and Israel can still defend itself.”

“If it makes no material difference, then the ban is only symbolic,” Rosenberg wrote, adding: “The signals are completely wrong.”

“It sends a message to our allies that we may not be as reliable as we should be, and it sends a message to our adversaries that we may be weak in the fight against terrorism,” he stressed.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also reacted critically to the British government’s decision, posting on X: “This shameful decision will not change Israel’s determination to defeat Hamas, a genocidal terrorist organization that brutally murdered 1,200 people, including 14 British citizens, on October 7.”

“Hamas still holds over 100 hostages, including five British citizens,” he continued in the post. “Rather than standing with Israel, a democracy defending itself against barbarism, Britain’s misguided decision will only embolden Hamas… Israel is waging a just war by just means, taking unprecedented measures to protect civilians from harm, and fully abiding by international law.”