In recent months, several NATO member states, including the UK, France, Germany, and the Netherlands, have come under scrutiny for continuing arms exports to Israel, despite mounting international legal concerns. These countries, citing alliance commitments and security interests, have largely sidestepped their obligations under international law. The ongoing conflict in Gaza, where Israeli military actions have resulted in widespread civilian casualties, brings this issue into sharp focus. NATO members’ actions reflect a troubling pattern of prioritizing military alliances over adherence to the legal norms designed to prevent human rights abuses.

 UK’s Partial Arms Embargo: A Limited Response

On September 2, the British government suspended 30 out of 350 arms export licenses to Israel, citing concerns that these weapons could be used in ways that violate international humanitarian law. While this step was welcomed by some as a sign of growing international pressure, it falls short of the UK’s legal obligations under international law. 

The UK’s decision aligns more with NATO’s security-oriented approach than with the legal frameworks established by global institutions like the International Court of Justice (ICJ). According to rulings made by the ICJ earlier this year, all states are required to impose a full arms embargo on Israel, given its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories and its involvement in possible genocidal actions in Gaza.

The British government’s selective suspension of arms licenses, while continuing to supply key military components such as parts for the F-35 fighter jet under NATO programs, underscores a larger issue. Foreign Minister David Lammy defended the continuation of certain arms exports, claiming they are essential for “wider peace and security.” However, this rationale aligns with NATO’s securitized language, where “peace and security” often serve as euphemisms for maintaining the current global order dominated by US interests, rather than upholding the rule of law.

 NATO’s Approach: Security Over International Law

NATO’s founding treaty explicitly states that the alliance’s security commitments do not override international law. Yet, in practice, member states frequently prioritize their obligations to the alliance over legal duties, particularly when it comes to arms exports. The current situation with Israel is a case in point. 

The ICJ’s ruling from July made it clear that concerns about Israel’s security do not justify its violations of international law. ICJ Judge Dire Tladi emphasized that security concerns are not unique to Israel—Palestine, too, has legitimate security needs. More importantly, security interests cannot trump the legal obligations of states, a point consistently reaffirmed by the court. However, NATO members, influenced by the US-led “war on terror” framework, have often justified continued military support to Israel under the guise of combating terrorism, despite this framework being outside the bounds of customary international law.

Broader NATO Complicity: France, Germany, and Canada

The UK is not alone in continuing arms exports to Israel. Other NATO members, including France and Germany, have similarly disregarded international law in favor of maintaining military relationships with Israel. Canada, while suspending new arms licenses, has allowed existing contracts to continue, effectively ensuring that the flow of weapons remains uninterrupted. 

The US, by far the largest supplier of arms to Israel, has shown no signs of halting its multi-billion-dollar arms deals, even as human rights organizations have documented the use of American weapons in attacks that target civilians in Gaza. The US’s influence, exerted through NATO, has created a climate where violations of international law are normalized. This normalization is facilitated by NATO members who, driven by geopolitical and economic interests, continue to supply weapons to Israel, making them complicit in the violence inflicted upon the Palestinian people.

 International Law’s Clear Stance

International law is unequivocal: the supply of arms to a state engaged in war crimes, crimes against humanity, or genocide is itself a crime. Despite this, NATO members have continued to prioritize their alliance commitments, often justifying their actions through weak interpretations of the law or by invoking Israel’s security concerns. The ICJ’s ruling, along with statements from the UN and other international bodies, makes clear that security interests, no matter how serious, cannot override the fundamental rules of international law. 

By continuing arms exports to Israel in the context of its ongoing military actions in Gaza, NATO members are not just violating international law; they are also undermining the credibility of the global legal system designed to protect human rights and prevent atrocities.

 Conclusion: A Call for Accountability

The ongoing complicity of NATO member states in supplying arms to Israel, despite evidence of their use in attacks on civilians, is a blatant violation of international law. It is imperative for these states to reassess their actions and fully commit to upholding the legal obligations they have signed on to. Security interests and alliance commitments should never come at the expense of human rights and the protection of civilian lives.

The ICJ and other international legal institutions provide a clear framework for what is required of states in situations like these. It is now up to NATO members to demonstrate that they are committed to the rule of law and to stop perpetuating cycles of violence in conflict zones like Gaza.