On 20 May 2025, the UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy made one of the strongest condemnations of Israeli policy by any British minister in recent memory. It was long overdue.
Denouncing the Israeli government’s deliberate blocking of humanitarian aid, its disproportionate military assault on Gaza, and extremist calls by cabinet ministers to “purify” the territory, Lammy described Israel’s actions as “morally unjustifiable,” “wholly disproportionate,” and “repellent.” He went further, declaring that the language of Israeli ministers amounted to “monstrous extremism.”
In response, the UK suspended trade negotiations with Israel. To many it was too little, too late. To others it was a betrayal of Israel.
Yet amid all the the moral outrage and diplomatic censure, one key policy remains untouched: Britain’s arms sales to Israel continue.
This glaring contradiction calls into question the sincerity and consistency of British foreign policy, and raises the question of the power of the defence lobby in the UK.
For if the UK Government is willing to suspend trade talks on the basis of Israel’s conduct in Gaza, then why is it still allowing British-made components and weapons systems to potentially fuel that very conduct? For an administration that prides itself on values-based diplomacy, this double standard is not just politically incoherent — it is morally indefensible.
A language of outrage, a policy of complicity
The UK’s position on the crisis in Gaza has become increasingly critical in tone. Lammy’s remarks, backed by Labour leader Keir Starmer, reflect a significant shift in rhetoric. The UK has accused Israel of blocking more than 9,000 aid trucks, of forcing mass displacement, and of engineering a man-made famine. It has condemned statements by Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and Interior Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir — both of whom have openly advocated for ethnic cleansing and the destruction of Gaza — as dangerous and extreme.
And yet, while sanctions have been levied against a handful of settler extremists and fringe organisations operating illegally in the West Bank, the government has not extended sanctions to these cabinet ministers themselves. Nor has it applied similar scrutiny to the arms trade — despite evidence that British weaponry may be indirectly supporting operations in which grave violations of international law have been reported.
According to the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), the UK has licensed over £500 million worth of military exports to Israel since 2015. These include components for aircraft, drones, targeting systems, and ammunition. In 2021 alone, the UK licensed £42 million in arms exports to Israel. These exports are subject to licensing rules that prohibit transfers where there is a “clear risk” that British weapons could be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law. AOAV’s own report in ‘Who is Arming Israel?’ details what we know (and what we are not allowed to know).
That risk has now become undeniable. If the UK Government truly believes that Israel is committing acts that are “morally unjustifiable” and “repellent,” then how can it justify continued arms exports under its own legal framework?
The political cost of inconsistency
This inconsistency is not simply a bureaucratic failure — it sends a broader message to the international community. It suggests that the UK is more concerned with managing appearances than upholding principles. While it has taken the symbolic step of suspending trade talks, the continuation of arms exports signals a business-as-usual approach to military collaboration.
Such duplicity weakens Britain’s moral authority. It damages its standing in international forums and erodes the credibility of statements about the need for humanitarian protections. It also sends a message to Israel — and other arms customers — that so long as their relationships are commercially or strategically valuable, Britain’s human rights red lines remain negotiable.
Moreover, by refusing to apply arms controls with the same urgency as trade measures, the UK opens itself up to potential legal challenges. The Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) and other human rights organisations have already raised concerns about the legality of UK arms exports to Israel in light of the mounting civilian toll in Gaza. Should further evidence emerge that British parts were used in unlawful strikes, the government could face judicial review for failing to suspend arms transfers.
Lessons from the past
This is not the first time the UK has found itself in this position. During the 2014 Gaza War, the then Coalition Government faced intense pressure to suspend arms sales amid accusations that Israeli forces had targeted UN schools and hospitals. A review of licences was conducted, but ultimately the arms trade was not curtailed in any meaningful way.
In Yemen, similar concerns over UK arms sales to Saudi Arabia — used in a bombing campaign that devastated civilian infrastructure — triggered legal action and widespread condemnation. And yet, as in Israel’s case, arms exports continued under the justification that no “clear risk” could be established, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Britain must learn from these precedents. The cost of failing to act in a timely and principled manner is paid not in legal fees or diplomatic blushes — but in human lives.
A call for accountability and for justice
If the UK Government wants to be taken seriously when it condemns “heinous” conduct and claims to stand with the principles of international humanitarian law, it must do more than issue strongly worded statements. It must act. This means immediately suspending all arms exports to Israel pending a full investigation into whether UK-made components have contributed to human rights violations in Gaza.
It also means extending sanctions to senior Israeli officials — including Smotrich and Ben-Gvir — whose public incitement to ethnic cleansing directly undermines the Geneva Conventions.
Finally, it requires the UK to back its condemnation with international leadership. Rather than hiding behind coordination with allies, Britain should set the standard for others to follow. The EU has already initiated a review of its trade agreement with Israel. Norway and Ireland have gone further in their recognition of the Palestinian state. The UK must not fall behind.
Words are no longer enough
There is no doubt that Lammy’s rhetoric marked a significant departure from the UK’s previously cautious stance. His willingness to call out the Israeli government’s actions as extreme and morally indefensible is welcome. But words alone will not stop the suffering in Gaza. Nor will symbolic gestures.
Real change requires confronting the uncomfortable truth that economic interests — particularly in the arms trade — are too often allowed to trump human rights. Suspending trade talks is not enough. To remain silent on arms exports while civilians are bombed, starved, and displaced is to be complicit.
If Britain truly believes that the Israeli government’s actions are “monstrous,” then it must act like it. That means ending arms sales. Now.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate