The UK's decision to stop arms for Israel has frustrated both sides

Britain's decision to restrict some military sales to Israel was widely condemned on Tuesday, with some British lawmakers and Jewish groups accusing the Labour government of abandoning Israel, while others claimed the decision did not go far enough.

The announcement has sparked intense debate across the political spectrum, with supporters of Israel expressing concern about the potential impact on the country's security, while critics argue that the measures are insufficient to address the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The decision has also raised questions about Britain's role in the ongoing conflict and its broader foreign policy objectives in the Middle East.

The reaction to the government's decision to cancel 30 of its 350 arms export licences demonstrates the strength of resentment in Britain about Israel's pursuit of the Islamist party Hamas in the Palestinian region of Gaza. It also highlights Prime Minister Keir Starmer's challenges in easing tensions in Britain between pro-Israeli and pro-Palestinian parties.

His foreign minister, David Lammy, stated that the decision to limit Britain's arms export licenses to Israel was made due to the potential that such technology might be used to perpetrate major violations of international humanitarian law.

The move comes amid growing international pressure on Israel to address concerns about civilian casualties and the humanitarian situation in Gaza. The United Nations and various human rights organizations have repeatedly called for an immediate ceasefire and increased humanitarian access to the region. Britain's decision to restrict arms sales is seen by some as a response to these calls, although critics argue that it falls short of the more comprehensive action they believe is necessary.

However, Britain's chief rabbi and British Jewish organizations have expressed concern that the measure may embolden Israel's regional opponents. Opponents of the Gaza conflict were equally scathing of the action, claiming that a loophole would allow Britain to continue supplying Israel with F-35 fighter jet parts.

Simon Diggins, a former British army officer and defense attaché in Afghanistan, said the government was attempting to send Israel a modest political message about how it saw the Gaza conflict being conducted. The difficulty is that it risks upsetting everyone while appeasing no one, which is always a dilemma for a government, he explained.

The decision has also reignited discussions about the broader implications of arms sales to conflict zones and the responsibility of nations to ensure that their exports are not used in ways that violate international law. Some experts argue that this move could set a precedent for other countries to reassess their arms export policies, potentially leading to a shift in global arms trade dynamics.

Although Britain is a smaller seller of armaments to Israel than the United States and Germany, some commentators interpreted the move as an indication of Israel's growing diplomatic isolation.

Following a government examination that discovered suspected violations of international humanitarian law by Israel, Britain announced on Monday that it will suspend 30 licences for a variety of equipment, including components used in military aircraft, helicopters, and drones.

Some British MPs and human rights organizations claimed the additional limitations were insufficient, and the government should impose a complete ban on arms transfers.

The government's decision to authorize export licences to sell weapons in Israel has been a contentious topic in Britain since Israel's war began on October 7, when Hamas fighters killed 1,200 people, according to Israeli figures.

Israel's offensive has destroyed much of the 2.3 million-strong enclave, killing more than 40,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza health ministry. Displaced individuals face poor living conditions, including a hunger crisis.

Thousands of people in Britain have been protesting for months, calling on the government to limit military shipments to Israel.

According to polls, the majority of the British public supports stopping military supplies to Israel. More than half of the people would accept the move, with only 13% opposed, according to YouGov data from the end of July.

However, Britain's action risks sparking a diplomatic conflict with Israel. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the British decision as humiliating and would strengthen Hamas.

British defence minister John Healey said the government had a duty to tell its closest friends the painful reality, and he emphasized that Israel would continue to be supported if it came under direct attack.

White House national security spokesman John Kirby declined to comment on the UK decision, but did tell reporters that the US continues to support Israel's defense capabilities and has found no violations of humanitarian law.

The divergence in approach between the UK and the US highlights the complex web of alliances and diplomatic considerations at play in the region. While both countries have traditionally been strong supporters of Israel, the UK's decision to restrict arms sales suggests a growing willingness to take a more critical stance on the conflict. This shift could potentially influence other European nations and impact the broader international response to the ongoing crisis in Gaza.

Monday's announcement was interpreted as the latest toughening of the new British government's stance on Israel's handling of the Gaza war. In July, Starmer dismissed the previous administration's objections to the International Criminal Court prosecutor's pursuit of an arrest warrant against Netanyahu. Starmer's government has also resumed funding for UNRWA, the main UN Palestinian refugee organization.