Uk politicians position about the war

Yes, Israel will be less safe if Western governments refuse to permit arms to be sold to it. But that will be a natural consequence of its choice to conduct the war in this fashion.

It is really difficult to maintain ethical integrity when trying to defeat an unethical enemy.
Iran will continue to supply Hamas with weapons and will be emboldened to hear that Israel is losing support from the west .
Thats why I don’t think this is as simple as you say .
From a purely ethical point of view then your view makes sense and is correct …. But neither side shares your ethical values.

If Israel is weakened, Hamas and Iran will not suddenly become ethical and hand in their weapons.

Yes - I agree it is a majority mainstream view

It's a fairly mainstream view, really. But not one that's liked by certain elements of the media.

We do not defeat extremism by arming extremists and compromising/sacrificing our own integrity. If a country wants to have allies among countries that uphold international law and standards, then they should be held to those standards. If they choose not to, that's up to them, but they shouldn't then still be provided with arms and assistance while people say how sad it is that bad things are done with those arms.

I think that it's incorrectly asserted that the view of not supplying arms to Israel due to very serious concerns of war crimes is a minority leftist approach. But it really is not. I was having a look at the yougov site which has polled the opinion regarding this issue, not only in the UK, but in other European countries such as: France, Italy, Sweden, Germany etc and in every single one, the majority of respondents were of the view that they would support their government on banning arms exports to Israel.

“It should actually be pretty simple.“
I wish …
The problem is that the governments of both Gaza and Israel are extremist . If you disarm one group you embolden the other.
Has Iran agreed to stop supplying weapons/ support to Hamas and Hezbollah ?

It should actually be pretty simple.

If a country wants to buy arms from countries which claim to uphold international law, they should be expected to use those arms within the limits of international law.

If they can't do that, then they shouldn't get to buy those arms. If there are grounds to suspect a country is not using those arms within international law, then there should be a halt on further arms going to that country until an investigation is carried out.

As for the matter of whether a country would be safe without those arms: perhaps the government should then decide on its priorities - is it willing to abide by international law in order to have what it considers necessary to keep its citizens safe?

@EasterIssland the details in that are just horrifying. Unbelievable.

I think even the most staunchest of Israel's supporters would agree that there must be accountability. As an ally would you prefer that the country you are supporting, continues on the path of self destruction on the international stage through your unlimited support?
Words are clearly not working, even open criticism has failed to make a difference, at what point do we say, we will no longer be complicit in your war crimes?

Turning a blind eye to war crimes is surely not the solution.

If you look at the different countries which supply Israel with arms, the UK's contribution is tiny in comparison to for example the US. We must follow our own rules and if the UK did stop arms exports to Israel (which they should) it will not have much of an impact in Israel's ability to defend itself.
What it will do however, is send a very strong message that even Israel's allies expect them to act within the parameters of IHL and perhaps even pressure them to re-think and change their strategy in the way they are conducting this war.

@Limesodaagain I wonder if it's possible to support Israel's defence with things like the Iron Dome, but restrict the more destructive weapons?

I don’t disagree…. But I do think it’s a lot more complicated than many posters on here acknowledge.

If "defending itself" means war crimes, possible genocide and the complete destruction of Gaza, is it legitimate? This is what Israel is doing with this "support".

I agree that the Palestinians are being subjected to horrendous brutality and suffering. I’m just not convinced that the answer is disarming Israel. I think that will embolden Israel’s many enemies in the region and the conflict would spread.
Im not a supporter of Netanyahu’s government and I deplore the way they ( and Hamas and Iran) view annd use innocent Palestinian civilians as acceptable collateral in this war.
Refusing to supply Israel with the means to defend itself is not the answer.

It is a disgrace, atleast this diplomat had the good grace to speak out and take a stance against the open war crimes and brutality that the Palestinians are being subjected to by the Israeli government, which is being supported by our government.

This is pretty damning
How can our government turn such a blind eye to Israeli war crimes?

Mr Smith said he had previously worked in Middle East arms export licensing assessment for the government and “each day” colleagues were witnessing “clear and unquestionable examples” of war crimes and breaches of international humanitarian law by Israel in Gaza.
“Senior members of the Israeli government and military have expressed open genocidal intent, Israeli soldiers take videos deliberately burning, destroying and looting civilian property,” he wrote.
“Whole streets and universities have been demolished, humanitarian aid is being blocked and civilians are regularly left with no safe quarter to flee to. Red Crescent ambulances have been attacked, schools and hospitals are regularly targeted. These are War Crimes.”
He said there was “no justification for the UK's continued arms sales to Israel”.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cyvpm1049d9o

I think it’s naive to imagine the result would be peace in the region.

I understand this but I wonder whether Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis, Islamic Jihad and Iran ( and the many other smaller groups that surround Israel) would feel emboldened by the withdrawal of Western support? And if they did feel emboldened what would be the result?

The man widely believed to have planned Oct 7th is still in chargeof hamas

What is odd is that Netanyahu just carried out a double ‘coup’, presumably intentionally, in getting Sinwar elected as head of Hamas by assassinating the more moderate and more reasonable Haniyeh, on Iranian soil, during the inauguration of Iran’s new leader, and so inflaming Iran further.

Then Netanyahu expects support. He and his trouble makers are responsible for so much that has gone wrong, just as much as Sinwar and Hamas, or even more.

In the short-term, a lack of arms supplies for use in Palestine could be an incentive to commit more fully to a ceasefire and peace process. I think it's important to distinguish between not supporting what's happening in Palestine and not supporting Israel to continue to exist. Saying "you can't use our weapons to kill civilians in Palestine" is very different from "you're on your own, mate".

If total support was withdrawn I imagine Iran would attack along with various terrorist organisations. The man widely believed to have planned Oct 7th is still in chargeof hamas. Without support Israel would gradually be eradicated.

Gazan civilians might get a break from being bombed relentlessly.