British Foreign Secretary David Lammy has announced a suspension on 30 arms export licenses to Israel, a move that has impressed neither those who have been demanding an outright ban on all weapons sales to that country or the Israeli government itself.
This decision, while seemingly minor in scope, has the potential to create significant ripple effects for the UK's own defense capabilities and its relationship with one of its key defense partners. As ever, it would appear that the second and third order implications of the move have not been thought through.
For starters, the UK's military exports to Israel amount to less than one percent of Israel's total arms imports, a mere drop in the ocean compared to what Israel gets the USA, Germany, and Italy. In fact, the UK exports roughly 25 times more arms to Saudi Arabia than it does to Israel, highlighting how relatively insignificant the British contribution is.
But, on the other hand, Israel is the third largest exporter of arms to the UK, and its defense technology plays a critical role in Britain's military arsenal.
Some of the significant imports from Israel include Watchkeeper drones (modelled on the Elbit Hermes 450), the M-113 Spike-NLOS, an Israeli fourth-generation fire-and-forget anti-tank guided missile, and active protective systems (APS). for armored fighting vehicles. In the case of APS, Britain's new Challenger 3 tank will rely on this Israeli technology to protect itself against various types of anti-tank missiles.
It is quite clear that the UK depends more on Israel for equipping Britain's Armed Forces than vice versa. If Israel reciprocates Lammy's action with an arms ban on exports to the UK then the UK will be the loser. The consequences could be dire.
The UK might find itself scrambling to replace the high-tech Israeli systems that its armed forces have come to depend on. The sophisticated technology that Israel provides is not easily sourced elsewhere, especially on short notice. A sudden halt in Israeli imports could leave the UK vulnerable, reducing its military readiness at a time when global tensions are on the rise.
Unlike the United States, Britain is not Israel's arms lifeline, far from it. Lammy's action in banning some exports is gesture politics only but could lead to serious ramifications for the UK Armed Forces.
It appears, therefore, that he is trying to run with the fox and hunt with the hounds at the same time, and has satisfied neither side of the argument. He appears to have folded in the face of vociferous, populist, and mainly leftist demands and underestimated the dismay caused in Tel Aviv just as they bury the six hostages murdered by Hamas.
As a direct result of such a ham-handed decision, it is possible that the UK could find itself facing the unintended consequences of what was meant to be a simple symbolic gesture. The British Armed Forces could be left scrambling to fill critical gaps, and the UK's reputation as a reliable defense partner has undoubtedly suffered.
The Labor Party may be finding the transition from opposition to government more difficult than it might have thought.
Lt Col Stuart Crawford is a political and defense commentator and former army officer. Sign up for his podcasts and newsletters at www.DefenceReview.uk