UK ban on some weapons to Israel signals diplomatic shift

The U.K. government on Monday announced that 30 out of some 350 arms export licenses to Israel would be banned because of the “clear risk" that certain weapons might be used in breach of international humanitarian law. These included parts for F-16 jet fighters and drones.

The move is largely symbolic as the U.K. sends relatively few arms to Israel. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the U.S. accounts for 69% and Germany for 30% of Israel’s arms imports. The decision by the U.K. government was carefully calibrated to ensure that Israel’s ability to defend itself from attack wasn’t compromised, with equipment used for submarines and training still allowed for export.

But the announcement does signal a shift in the U.K.’s diplomatic backing, which has always been more important for Israel than any logistical or military support, analysts said. The move also opens diplomatic space for other allies to follow suit, potentially causing a headache for the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“When a country that is considered one of Israel’s major allies, comes and says, ‘we can no longer sell you weapons,’ it points to a shift in Israel’s international reputation," said Neve Gordon, a professor of human-rights law at Queen Mary University of London. “This political shift can have a domino effect."

Netanyahu called the U.K.’s decision “shameful." Britain’s chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis said on X that the decision will “serve to encourage our shared enemies." Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz also questioned the timing of the announcement, only days after news that Hamas had killed six hostages in captivity.

Pro-Palestinian groups, however, said that the embargo didn’t go far enough and was born out of political compromise rather than any real desire to end the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

The U.K.’s decision could have far-reaching effects. For instance, the U.K. was the first nation to give long-range cruise missiles to Ukraine, which opened the path for other allies to follow suit. But Monday’s decision could make it acceptable for close allies to curtail military support for Israel, analysts said.

“The U.K. might not be the main source of weapons to Israel but it sends the message that the current Israeli government is losing the support of its Western allies," said Baraa Shiban, an associate fellow with Royal United Services Institute, a British think tank. This ultimately “adds pressure on the Biden administration to follow suit."

The move by the U.K. comes as growing numbers of Western nations have tried to press Israel to strike a cease-fire deal. The U.S. has said it wouldn’t consider cutting off Israel from weapons supplies but it has also grown increasingly frustrated with the Gaza conflict. President Biden on Monday said he didn’t think Netanyahu was doing enough to secure a cease-fire.

The Israeli government has said Hamas is the one that needs to make concessions to stop the bloodshed and warned that a unilateral Israeli withdrawal from the enclave would allow Hamas to regroup and reassert power again, setting the stage for future attacks on Israel like on Oct. 7.

A handful of other Western nations have also announced curbs on weapons exports to Israel, including Spain, Italy and Canada. Those limits often don’t include previously signed contracts that could hurt domestic producers or “nonlethal" weapons and support. Britain’s ban, for instance, didn’t include parts for F-35 jet fighters that have been used to bomb Gaza.

U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy, who describes himself as a progressive Zionist, told Parliament the government assessed there was a chance weapons sent to Israel could be used to violate humanitarian law. The government criticized Israel’s treatment of detainees and its failure to get more humanitarian support into Gaza as key reasons for the partial embargo.

U.K. Defense Secretary John Healey called his Israeli counterpart on Monday to reaffirm that Britain would support its defense if it came under attack. The U.K. has in the past imposed far more stringent arms embargoes, including in 1982 when Margaret Thatcher banned oil and arms exports after Israel invaded Lebanon. That was only lifted in 1994.

The U.K. has spent the past year backing Israel’s right to self-defense against Hamas and Iran. Its military has intervened to protect Israeli ships in the Red Sea from Houthi rebel attack and the U.K. sent aircraft to help shoot down Iranian drones aimed at Israel earlier this year.

But under the leadership of the newly elected Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer, the U.K. is taking a harder line, both under pressure from voters and amid growing angst that the country has little leverage over the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza.

Since Starmer took power in July, the government has abandoned plans, championed by the former Conservative government, to challenge the right of the International Criminal Court to seek an arrest warrant for Netanyahu. The U.K. has also, after a short pause, resumed funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which Israel said had Hamas-linked staff involved in the Oct 7. attack.

In August Lammy visited Israel alongside French Foreign Minister Stéphane Séjourné and issued a joint statement stating that there “is no further time to lose" to seize a deal to release the hostages. Some officials said that the joint tour was a sign that the U.K. wasn’t going to continue in lockstep with the U.S. approach to Israel and instead become more skeptical.

The British move also reflects how support for Israel’s actions in Gaza is becoming more complicated for its Western allies. A poll conducted by YouGov at the end of July showed that 74% of Britons supported a cease-fire in Gaza and 58% backed an arms embargo on Israel. The Labour Party also has a sizable Muslim and pro-Palestinian voter base. It lost several seats in the July election to independent candidates who essentially made Gaza their main campaign pitch.

Former Prime Minister Boris Johnson criticized the new government, saying it would only embolden Hamas. The Times of London said in an op-ed that the move was “playing to the gallery" and a PR exercise.

Dov Leiber contributed to this article.

Write to Max Colchester at Max.Colchester@wsj.com