-Activists and legal experts criticize Labour’s mixed signals and call for clarity on sales of weapons to Israel
- ‘Full extent of UK’s complicity remains shrouded in secrecy,’ says Zaki Sarraf of the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians
- If a country stops giving weapons to Israel now, it ‘will not retroactively absolve that state of complicity in past violations of international humanitarian law,’ says ex-ICJ staffer Michael Becker
- UK officials could face cases of ‘aiding and abetting in terms of individual criminal liability at the International Criminal Court,’ says law professor Gerhard Kemp
ISTANBUL
On Saturday, UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy posted a statement on X condemning the “tragic loss of life” in an Israeli attack on a school in Gaza, its most recent strike on a shelter for forcibly displaced Palestinians that killed at least 100 people, including women and children.
His post opened a floodgate of stinging criticism, as users called out Lammy and the UK government for being complicit in Israel’s ongoing atrocities, both through diplomatic cover and unabated weapons supplies.
Two days later, the same thing happened when Prime Minister Keir Starmer put up a joint statement with France and Germany in support of cease-fire negotiations expected to resume this month.
The sentiments expressed in those comments are grounded in reality, echoing what advocacy groups, rights watchdogs and legal advisers have been saying for months.
The UK remains a key supplier of weapons to Israel, with British defense industry exports over the past few years running in hundreds of millions of dollars.
Throughout Israel’s ongoing war on Gaza, where it has now killed almost 40,000 Palestinians and wounded nearly 92,200, the UK government has faced immense domestic pressure to stop selling weapons to Israel, a step taken by countries such as Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Japan.
While the Conservative government led by Rishi Sunak paid little heed to the demands, Starmer and Labour indicated when taking over that their stance could be different.
Recent British media reports even claimed that the Labour government has imposed a secret embargo on weapons transfers to Israel, but a government spokesperson shot down the idea, saying “there has been no change to our approach to export licenses to Israel.”
Amid the confusion and mixed signals, rights organizations and legal experts are pushing the UK government to clarify its position, reiterating that its actions contradict its apparent position in favor of a cease-fire and place it at risk of charges of complicity in Israel’s deadly war.
“The UK government persists in issuing empty statements urging Israel to comply with international law,” Zaki Sarraf, legal officer at the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP), told Anadolu.
“Anything short of an immediate arms embargo would indicate that the UK has no qualms facilitating war crimes, so long as they are committed by an ally.”
‘Shrouded in secrecy’
According to the UK-based Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), “15% of every F-35 that Israel is using to bombard Gaza is made by British industry.”
The advocacy group estimates the value of these components to be worth at least £336 million (around $430 million) since 2016.
BAE Systems is the biggest UK company in the F-35 program, but many other UK companies are also involved, such as Martin-Baker and L3Harris, according to CAAT.
Regarding munitions, the group said American firm Lockheed Martin’s MLRS M270 rocket launcher “is built in Europe by an international consortium of companies from France, Germany, Italy and UK.”
According to data from the UK Department for Business and Trade, over 100 export licenses have been approved for the sale of arms, military equipment, and other controlled goods to Israel since Oct. 7 last year.
As of this May, the number of existing export licenses for arms and military equipment “with Israel as the destination” stood at 345.
“As well as providing political cover for Israel, the UK has continued to export weapons and components that Israel has deployed against Palestinians with devastating effect, such as F-35 aircraft dropping 2,000-pound bombs on civilian targets in Gaza,” Sarraf told Anadolu.
He emphasized that the “full extent of the UK’s complicity remains shrouded in secrecy.”
“British spy planes, specialized in target acquisition, have been flying over Gaza since December 2023. They are ostensibly providing intelligence to Israel for hostage recovery, but the government has repeatedly refused to confirm whether this intelligence has been used by Israel for its brutal military actions against Palestinians,” he said.
Sarraf said the ICJP is investigating private individuals and British ministers, and has filed complaints with Scotland Yard’s War Crimes Unit “to initiate legal proceedings against those complicit under UK and international law.”
Additionally, the center is supporting the judicial review brought by the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) and Palestinian rights group Al-Haq against the UK trade secretary for the continued issuance of arms export licenses to Israel, he added.
Stopping sales ‘will not retroactively absolve’ UK
On the question of complicity, legal expert Michael Becker said “third states, including the UK, might themselves face liability or be deemed responsible” if the International Court of Justice (ICJ) or another competent court finds Israel guilty of violating international humanitarian law (IHL) or the Genocide Convention.
“As a legal matter, there is some debate about whether complicity (in genocide) requires weapons to have been provided with both the knowledge that they will be used to commit genocide and also the intent that they be used for that purpose,” explained Becker, a former ICJ staffer.
“The better view, however, is that full knowledge that the weapons will be used to perpetrate genocide is sufficient.”
He said the ICJ has “referred in its past case law to the possibility of a finding against a state for complicity in genocide.”
Regarding complicity in war crimes, he said: “If the UK or another state provides weapons or bombs to Israel while knowing that there is a substantial risk that Israel will use those weapons or bombs in ways that violate IHL, this could lead to liability for complicity in violations of IHL.”
In this situation, it would not matter if the country “that supplies weapons to Israel intended for such weapons to be used unlawfully,” he said.
To a question about whether the UK could evade the threat of complicity if it halts weapons supplies to Israel, Becker explained that such a step would “only provide protection from liability going forward.”
“If the UK or another state that has been supplying weapons or bombs to Israel suspends that support now, this will not retroactively absolve that state of complicity in past violations of IHL,” he said.
“The question will be at what point did the state know, or at what point should the state have known, that weapons or bombs would likely be used in ways that violate IHL. If that threshold was met eight months ago, the UK could still be found complicit in Israel’s actions over that time period, up until the transfer of weapons was suspended.”
Could ICC charge British officials?
For legal scholar Gerhard Kemp, a more realistic approach to the legal question “is to look at possible cases of aiding and abetting in terms of individual criminal liability at the International Criminal Court (ICC).”
“For example, if British officials allow weapons to be delivered to Israel, while they know that there is a plausible case of war crimes and other serious crimes under international law against Israeli leaders, and that the weapons will be used in Gaza, then one could make the case that the British officials are potentially aiding and abetting the commission of war crimes in Gaza,” Kemp, a law professor at the University of the West of England, Bristol, told Anadolu.
He said the UK’s domestic laws “are designed to prevent weapons being delivered to entities and countries involved in the commission of war crimes and other international crimes (including genocide).”
“With what we currently know from the information before the ICC … together with what we know from the genocide case before the ICJ, I think it is clear that there is a substantial risk that UK weapons deliveries to Israel will not only potentially violate domestic UK law, but also international law, and with potential liability for aiding and abetting,” said Kemp.
