We regularly assess Israel’s compliance with, and commitment to, international humanitarian law. It was those assessments that led us in September 2024 to suspend licences where the items might be used in military operations in Gaza. Most of the licences suspended at that time have since expired, but we have continued to refuse licence applications on the same basis.
The Secretary of State said that revisiting the pause on arms export licences to Israel was “intrinsically linked” to movement towards a so-called sustainable peace. Since then, during the so-called ceasefire, Israeli forces have killed over 481 Palestinians in Gaza, struck defenceless tents housing cowering families and bombed to kingdom come schools used as civilian shelters. What they have not done is allow the flow of humanitarian aid; instead, 37 international non-governmental organisations have been suspended. Yet this Government continue with a business-as-usual approach to arms trade with Israel. How can the Government justify revisiting the decision to pause arms export licences, rather than suspending arms exports altogether, to pressure Israel to comply with international law?
I agree with one part of what the hon. Member said, which is that we do want to see humanitarian aid get to the people who need it, and we need to see a proper, lasting peace, based on peace and justice, working together, and that is our commitment. He is, however, completely wrong to suggest that it is business as usual. We have suspended some licences, in particular where we think that because of Israel’s failure to comply with international humanitarian law they might be used in relation to operations in Gaza. Export licences are required only in relation to military and dual-use equipment, and some of that dual-use equipment is used by non-governmental organisations—armour for journalists and things like that—so of course it is right that we adopt a case-by-case approach. As I say, we have suspended a series of licences where we think that there is a threat to Gaza, but we maintain the export licence criteria that were laid out in Parliament.