On September 2, the British government announced it was suspending 30 licenses for arms exports to Israel, saying these weapons might be used “to commit or to facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law.” Many cheered on this partial embargo as a cautious move toward nothing less than what international law demands of the UK in the wake of Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza and the West Bank.

International law, as declared by the ICJ, requires all states to impose a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel. This is clearly justified both by Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine and the genocidal intent of that country in Gaza. Suspension by Britain of a tiny proportion of its arms licenses hardly amounts to fulfilling this duty.

 It remains part of a pattern among members of NATO to prioritize alliance obligations over legal international obligations.

The UK’s legal reasoning for not stopping some arms sales is pretty weak. The British government stops only two issues under the blockade of humanitarian aid, and the abuse of prisoners ignores bigger issues, like indiscriminate attacks on civilians and infrastructure. 

Moreover, it continues to parrot Israel’s argument that Hamas uses Palestinian civilians as human shields, an accusation widely regarded as a Trojan Horse for accepting unprecedented levels of civilian casualties.

Even the partial embargo is permitting the U.K. to supply vital parts for the F-35 fighter aircraft via a NATO program, using precisely the same aircraft the U.K. and other Western nations have permitted to be used in attacks on Gaza. Foreign Minister David Lammy said that this was acceptable because the “wider peace and security” depended upon U.K. participation, ignoring Israel’s role in destabilizing the area.

This defense fits into the problematic framework of NATO against terrorism, further rooted with the US “war on terror.” This framework has prioritized securitization over human rights and undercuts international law. NATO states, including the UK, Netherlands, and Germany, continued to export arms to Israel, clear signs of war crimes and possibly genocide.

It was upheld in July by the ruling of the ICJ that security concerns cannot take precedence over international law on the part of Israel. Yet, the said members are callously ignoring the same. The continued flow of arms to Israel is not only a policy failure but rather a collaboration with genocide against the Palestinian people. The NATO members can provide weapons to a country that has been committing war crimes and genocide; according to international law, the act of supplying weapons is in itself a crime, thereby making these NATO members direct enablers of Israel’s atrocities.

The UK and more of its NATO allies have to stop hiding their actions behind fragile legal arguments and face the reality of arming criminal wars. Anything less than a full arms embargo is not only a moral failure but also a breach of international law.