US asked UK in August what it would take to reconsider Israeli weapons suspension

Secretary of State Antony Blinken asked U.K. Foreign Secretary David Lammy last month what the U.K. would need from Israel to reconsider restricting weapons sales to the country, according to two U.S. officials briefed on the call.

Lammy responded: A cease-fire in Gaza and access by international human rights organizations to the Palestinians in Israeli prison.

Blinken and Lammy met Tuesday in London and discussed the situation in Gaza and the ongoing negotiations around a cease-fire, the leaders said during a joint press conference. But it is unclear whether they specifically discussed the suspension of certain arms to Israel.

In the Aug. 20 call between the two leaders, Lammy informed Blinken that an internal assessment by the U.K. government on Israel’s actions in Gaza had led to its decision to withhold 30 export licenses to Israel for components needed for F-16s, helicopters, naval systems and drones.

The call was cordial, according to one of the U.S. officials, who read a portion of the transcript to POLITICO. Blinken also indicated that the U.S. was in the process of assessing Israel’s actions in Gaza. But he did not give any detail about Washington’s internal thinking.

The question by Blinken highlights how the Biden administration continues to back Israel’s military campaign in Gaza despite concerns by some of its closest allies about its behavior on the ground.

Asked about the conversation, the U.K. embassy in Washington said in a statement: “We hope to see sustained evidence of Israel’s commitment to [international humanitarian law] that would allow us to lift this suspension.”

The State Department declined to comment. But in a response from a reporter Tuesday about the killing of an American citizen in the West Bank, Blinken spoke to Washington’s thoughts on Israeli forces’ broader engagement with Palestinians.

“We’ve long seen reports of the security forces looking the other way when extremist settlers use violence against Palestinians. And now we have the second American citizen killed at the hands of Israeli security forces. It’s not acceptable. It has to change,” Blinken said.

Lammy informed the British parliament on Sept. 2 that it would suspend about 30 of a total of 350 arms exports for Israel, citing a “clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation” of international humanitarian law.

“We’ve always been clear in the U.K. in our belief in the international rule of law, the rules-based order, and in IHL issues which are fundamentally important,” Lammy told reporters Tuesday.

Soon after the restrictions were announced, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu slammed the move as a “shameful” decision that will serve to “embolden Hamas.”

Blinken’s inquiry was not a pressure tactic, one of the U.S. officials said. Instead, it was borne out of a genuine interest to understand whether the U.K. would eventually rethink its policy.

The U.K. sells limited weapons and weapons parts to Israel, so the move has likely had limited impact on Israel’s day-to-day operations in Gaza. The U.K.’s decision to withhold some weapons was seen as largely symbolic, but marks a significant shift in approach to the crisis for Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s new Labour government.

U.S. officials anticipated such a decision by the U.K. government for months as officials from both parties were outspoken about needing to do more to address Israel’s actions in Gaza.

A senior U.S. administration official said the U.K. informed the U.S. multiple times over the last year that it was conducting its internal review and in August that it had decided on the suspension.

U.S. domestic laws that dictate how and when Washington should withhold arms differ from the U.K. laws that guide similar decision making. U.K. law broadly says that if there is a risk of international humanitarian law being violated, the government is legally required to take action. In the U.S., the administration takes action if it has confirmed those laws have been violated.

But international humanitarian law, though interpretation of it often varies, was created in an effort to set up global rules that dictate what is legal during armed conflict.

“At least the Brits are willing to call it like it is, which leadership here appears unwilling to do despite being presented with all the same information about Israeli IHL violations,” said a third U.S. official familiar with the discussions. “Leadership misses the fact that if we showed the same moral and legal clarity as the U.K. … it would give us more leverage for a cease-fire deal, not less.”