Keir Starmer’s most senior legal adviser has stepped in to help resolve the contentious choice of whether or not to prohibit the United Kingdom from selling weaponry to Israel. This comes at a time when officials are having difficulty distinguishing between “offensive” and “defensive” weapons.
Until they are able to determine with absolute certainty which weapons could be used to violate international humanitarian law, the Attorney General, Richard Hermer, has reportedly informed authorities from the Foreign Office that he will not give his approval to a decision that would prohibit the sale of certain weapons while permitting the sale of others.
The legal wrangling that is taking place at the highest levels of government is believed to be the primary cause of the delay in the decision, which has gotten even more delicate in recent weeks as the crisis in the Middle East has become more severe.
A representative for the Foreign Office issued the following statement: “This government is committed to upholding international law.” However, they did not comment on Hermer’s participation. We have made it very clear that we will not consider exporting any things if there is a possibility that they could be used to conduct or support a severe violation of international humanitarian law.
As soon as the foreign secretary took office, he launched a review process that is currently being carried out to determine whether or not Israel is adhering to international humanitarian law. As soon as the evaluation procedure has been finished, we will offer an update on the situation.
In light of the fact that Israel is continuing its attack on Gaza, David Lammy has initiated an investigation into whether or not the United Kingdom ought to continue providing arms to Israel. With the assertion that such a measure would make it possible for Israel to defend itself, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has discussed the possibility of prohibiting the sale of “offensive” weapons while permitting arms manufacturers to continue supplying “defensive” weapons.
The Israeli government is sensitive to any allegation that Britain believes it has violated international humanitarian law, despite the fact that the United Kingdom only transfers approximately 18 million pounds worth of military weapons to Israel each year.
It has already been reported that Benjamin Netanyahu is dissatisfied with Lammy’s decision to remove the United Kingdom’s objection to the International Criminal Court obtaining an arrest warrant against him. The results of the United Kingdom’s armaments review are currently under close observation by the Israeli prime minister.
In recent days, Israel has carried out airstrikes on Lebanon, while Hezbollah has carried out a drone and rocket attack against northern Israel, which has raised worries of a wider battle in the Middle East. As a result, the decision has become even more critical.
Before members of parliament left for their summer break, Lammy was supposed to make an announcement regarding the findings of his investigation. However, the decision continues to be delayed because top officials of the administration are uncertain about whether or not they will be able to successfully argue the distinction between offensive and defensive in a court of law.
In an effort to ascertain the functions that each sort of weapon system has served in the past, the authorities are currently going through each and every form of weapon system. Hermer, who has been an ally of Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, ever since the two of them were in the legal profession, has informed officials that they need to be confident that any weapon that is still being sold has not been used to violate international humanitarian law.
In addition, it is believed that Starmer is actively participating in the decision-making process, despite the fact that the Foreign Office is the formal entity responsible for carrying out the evaluation.
The government is eager to prevent a situation similar to the one that occurred in 2019, when the court of appeals declared that the sale of armaments by the United Kingdom to Saudi Arabia was illegal and that ministers had not given adequate attention to the question of whether or not the arms had been used to violate human rights law in Yemen.
A group of solicitors who specialise in human rights filed a petition with the highest court in the land last week, alleging that the government is behaving in an unreasonable manner by not blocking the sale of weaponry. They presented more than one hundred pages of witness testimony in support of their claim. The testimony included charges that Palestinians had been subjected to torture, that they had been left untreated in hospitals, and that they had been unable to flee severe shelling.
One individual who is familiar with the procedure stated that although international humanitarian law is ambiguous, it does state that we are required to demonstrate that we have explored every possibility. Because of this, the primary obstacle in this situation is legal, not diplomatic.
Over the course of the investigation, it would appear that the government has ceased the process of giving fresh licences for the sale of arms to Israel. It has been claimed that exporters who are applying for new licences are receiving messages from the Department of Business and Trade stating that their applications have been suspended until the review is finished.
In spite of this, the delay in the review has created considerable dissatisfaction in certain sectors of the British government. A British diplomat stationed in Dublin resigned from his position earlier this month due to the fact that authorities had not yet prohibited the sale of weapons to Israel. During an interview with the BBC, Mark Smith expressed his belief that Israel was “committing war crimes in plain sight.”