Keir Starmer was right to take these small but meaningful steps over Israel

Last Monday, the UK announced it was suspending 8.5 per cent of the UK’s arms licences for sales to Israel. The other 91.5 per cent remain. This was a decision reached after receiving and absorbing detailed legal advice. It does not affect UK-made parts for Israel’s F15 fighter jets.

I have been concerned by the overreaction of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu; and dismayed by the comments of some senior British parliamentarians, such as Kemi Badenoch MP, a few lawyers and others (including the Chief Rabbi) to the decision.

The way in which some expressed their views, notably a wildly disproportionate newspaper article by Boris Johnson, suggested they believed that there was no empirical or proper legal foundation for the decision taken.

The legal advice relied upon by Sir Keir Starmer and David Lammy has long been known to senior UK ministers. Lord Cameron as foreign secretary is said by officials to have known about the advice since February.

A Foreign Office source told The Guardian that wider lessons need to be drawn from the unsatisfactory internal handling of the issue. Sitting on clear legal advice for more than a very short time cannot be justified. Starmer has shown courage and conviction in deciding that the right thing must be done – however difficult it is.

It is crucial that the rule of law – which prevents the abuse of state power and applies to all – is not shouted down in an unruly way by people who are acting on prejudice, dressed up as principle. It is insidious that democracy, brought about by parliamentarians doing exactly what legal advice dictates, should be hijacked by populist sloganeering – especially when that comes from former prime ministers like Boris Johnson, who should know better.

In parliament, in the House of Lords where I sit and in the House of Commons, all parties and individual members frequently express pride in the UK’s historic adherence to the rule of law.

For reasons succinctly given by the Constitution Unit, in the debates in the Lords before the general election on the previous government’s doomed Rwanda policy, it was cited several times per day as something from which we should not vary in the cause of expediency.

Surprisingly, critics demonstrated astonishing ignorance of the position taken on the same Israel armaments issue by valued international allies – or, possibly, found it inconvenient to reference international decisions.

Italy decided, following 7 October, to enter into no new contracts to send armaments to Israel. The Dutch courts have declared illegal all direct exports of military materiel to Israel. The Belgian authorities have restricted such exports and have called for an EU-wide ban. Spain’s refusal started on 7 October 2023, on legal grounds. In March, Canada halted future arms sales to Israel. Exactly the same conclusions on the law have been reached in those countries.

Behind the measured decision announced by the UK, there plainly stands an anxious legal analysis, not least by a prime minister whom few would contradict is one of the most able analytical lawyers of his generation.

That he considered the issue with care is evident from the decision that only a small minority of contracts should be paused. He has made clear since 7 October his outrage – and that felt by all decent people – at the vile terrorist attack by Hamas against Israel and his fervent support for the security and integrity of the state of Israel.

He and the foreign secretary must have anticipated the likelihood of severe criticism for the decision from those who were not prepared to face up to the legal rules applicable and therefore to be followed. The intemperate attacks on them for their exercise of integrity were inexcusable.

In my view, the only criticism that fairly may be made is that they might have paused the announcement of the decision until Tuesday, after the funerals of the six hostages whose bodies showed them to have been cruelly murdered by Hamas.

This issue has highlighted a broader problem for those of us in public life who do not respect Netanyahu. He has a long – and, in parts – unattractive political history.

His stubborn resistance in recent months to sound advice given by IDF commanders, by the families of hostages who remain unaccounted for – and by senior international figures including the president and vice-president of the USA – to many of us signifies a person no longer fit for high office.

Netanyahu and Hamas leaders alike have repeatedly undermined attempts at mediation determinedly and diligently pursued by Qatar, whose emir and prime minister merit international praise.

Those of us who hold these opinions have felt the sting of disparagement and deprecation for holding them, even from some political colleagues we admire. For Jews to criticise other Jews who hold these views is to undermine the very freedoms for which our forbears lost their lives, under the yoke of the most terrible tyranny.

I hesitated long and hard before expressing these concerns. However, I know that I am not the only person who has felt scourged by these issues. I hope that sharing my disquiet will help to restore a more familiar and calmer discussion.

Alex Carlile is Lord Carlile of Berriew CBE KC