Readers divided over whether or not Britain ought to cease supplying weapons to Israel

After the UK government suspended some arms sales to Israel amid concerns over their use in Gaza, many have pushed for Britain to cease weapons supplies altogether.

So we asked you if Britain should stop supplying weapons to Israel – and the vote was largely split right down the middle, with 887 saying yes, we should stop, while 907 said no, we shouldn’t. One reader said ‘the actions of Israel have gone beyond protecting its borders or even retribution’.

The UK doesn’t directly supply weapons to Israel, but does grant export licences for British firms to sell arms to them. Foreign secretary David Lammy told Parliament last week around 30 of 350 such licences will be suspended, stressing that “this is not a blanket ban, this is not an arms embargo”.

The suspension includes components used in military aircraft used in Gaza, including drones and helicopters, as well as items which assist ground targeting. But no ban has been placed on the components for multinational F-35 jets – known as ‘the most lethal in the world’. The government says such a veto would have a ‘significant effect on the global F-35 fleet with serious implications for international peace and security’.

‘The actions of Israel have gone beyond protecting its borders’

Many of you commented on our original story. Here’s a selection of what some of you had to say:

Iron57: “The actions of Israel have gone beyond protecting its borders or even retribution. This is a religious war of differing ideologies, and Israeli action is now bordering on ethnic cleansing. This country should not allow itself to become further involved. We should withdraw arms sales immediately.”

Pauligirl: “This has gone beyond a reprisal, it is genocide.”

Kim-kc: “There’s too much money involved for it to end. The armaments manufacturers have a vested interest in keeping conflicts going as long as possible. They’re also effective at lobbying MPs etc when it comes to keeping contracts going.”

Spider123666: “Stop supplying weapons and stop sending money to countries whose wars are nothing to do with us. Let them sort it out. We need the money here and as taxpayers I think we are more entitled to it.”

LynxVegas: “I wonder how much more quickly wars would end if third party nations didn’t get involved by selling weapons – to one side or the other – or, in some cases, both? But, as usual, it’s all about money. Manufacturers make a fortune, they pay more tax. The Israel problem was created by the west, after WW2. It was originally controlled by the British until they left. It’s been a ticking time bomb ever since.”

Damo667: “Stop supplying weapons to all, help the homeless vets and people of this country that need it instead of creating more evil in the world – not that they ever will.”

Mixed response from parliament

Mr Lammy told MPs last week the government had a legal duty to review Britain’s export licences amid the war in Gaza. The review highlighted a ‘clear risk’ UK equipment could be used to commit “a serious violation of international humanitarian law”.

There were mixed reactions in the House to the announcement, with some rallying against the ban while others felt the measures didn’t go far enough.

Green MP Ellie Chowns hailed the suspension as a “welcome and significant step, but leaves vital questions unanswered” – mainly why so many licences are being exempt. She added there is ‘no justification at all’ for continuing to license F-35 fighter jets.

The decision “sends a very problematic message” to Hamas and its backer Iran, according to Israeli foreign minister Israel Katz.