‘Legal decision, not a policy decision’ to suspend Israel arms exports – Starmer
Conservative Party leader Rishi Sunak pressed the Prime Minister over the issue in the House of Commons.
Sir Keir Starmer has claimed Britain’s allies “understand” its move to suspend some arms exports to Israel, insisting it was a “legal not a policy decision”.
The Prime Minister also argued “this isn’t an Israel issue” but the Government was required to follow the legal framework on licensing and keep them under review.
The UK has suspended around 30 out of a total of approximately 350 licences because of concerns they could be used in violations of international humanitarian law in the Gaza conflict.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has condemned the UK’s “shameful” decision.
Conservative Party leader Rishi Sunak pressed the Prime Minister over the move, telling the Commons: “It’s a decision that the Chief Rabbi says beggars belief and will encourage our shared enemies.
“Can the Prime Minister therefore explain how his decision will help to secure the release of the 101 hostages still being held by Hamas?”
Sir Keir replied: “The remaining hostages must be released and we need a ceasefire to ensure that that can happen, that aid desperately needed can get into the region, and we can begin the path to a two-state solution.
“He asks how we arrived at this decision – he knows very well, because the legal framework is clear – the latest guidance was issued in 2021, under his government, and that means that licences have to be kept under review, as they were by his government.
“And I think he probably knows the advice that was given to his government, he understands the framework.
“We’ve carried out the review in the same way, and come to a clear legal conclusion, and shared that conclusion, the assessment, with Parliament.”
He added: “We will, of course, continue to stand by Israel’s right to self-defence, but it is important that we are a country committed to the international rule of law, that gives us the strength of argument with our allies on important issues.
“This is a difficult issue, I recognise that, but it’s a legal decision, not a policy decision.”
On allies, Mr Sunak said: “It is essential that we maintain transatlantic unity in the face of terrorist threats and avoid any perception of splits between our two nations.
“So can he therefore update the House or tell the House, what engagement he had with the United States prior to taking this significant decision?”
The Prime Minister acknowledged the importance of working with allies, adding: “Of course, as he would expect, as the House would expect, we have talked this through with our allies, they understand, they have a different legal system, that is the point they have made.”
Mr Sunak said the decisions have “emotional” consequences as he noted Sir Keir’s action was taken on the same day as the funerals of Israeli hostages murdered by Hamas.
He said: “I hope the Prime Minister understands the hurt that has been caused and can he take this opportunity to reassure Israel and the Jewish community that the United Kingdom and this House stands behind Israel and its right to self-defence?”
Sir Keir replied: “Let me be very clear about that, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again – we absolutely recognise and support Israel’s right to self-defence and have taken action in support of that right of self-defence and I’ve made that repeatedly clear in all of my engagements with Israel across the region and with all of our allies.
“I absolutely stand by that.
“But in relation to licences, this isn’t an Israel issue, it’s the framework for all licences that have to be kept under review, it’s the same test for all licences as the prime minister knows.”
At this point Sir Keir was mistakenly referring to his predecessor Mr Sunak as the current prime minister, something Conservative MPs pointed out.
Sir Keir went on to correct himself as he defended the decision, saying: “We either comply with international law or we don’t and we only have strength in our arguments because we comply with international law.
“I appreciate that the party opposite didn’t think that international law mattered.”
