By barring officials from Jerusalem from a major UK arms fair, the government undermines vital defence ties and jeopardises access to some of the world’s most battle-tested technologies
September 1, 2025 12:38
Labour’s Middle East policy has taken another reckless turn. Having already announced its premature and one-sided recognition of a Palestinian state, the party is now banning Israeli officials from participating in the Defence and Security Equipment International (DSEI) exhibition in London, one of the world’s premier arms fairs. Israeli defence firms may still exhibit, but the decision puts vital British-Israeli security cooperation on a perilous course. Persist with this trajectory and Labour will not only shred Britain’s credibility as a serious security partner, but also risk denying our forces and allies access to some of the most proven, battle-tested technologies on the market.
Posturing is taking precedence over strategy. Labour is delivering student union politics dressed up as foreign policy, and this approach carries very real risks for Britain’s security and standing in the Middle East. For decades, the UK has played a careful role in the region. Our diplomats, intelligence services, and defence industries have given us leverage. Rather than dictate events, we have traditionally been seen as a pragmatic partner, able to engage with all sides. By unilaterally recognising Palestine and turning Israelis officials into pariahs at Britain’s biggest defence trade show, Labour signals that Britain is no longer a reliable player, but one willing to grandstand for domestic political consumption.
The irony is that these moves do nothing to help Palestinians and certainly do not advance peace. Recognition outside of negotiations removes incentives for compromise, hardens maximalist positions, and feeds rejectionist actors who have no interest in a two-state solution. Instead of nudging both sides towards dialogue, Labour’s approach rewards intransigence and punishes Israel, the one state in the region that is both democratic and aligned with British values.
The decision to target the Israeli defence sector is even more short-sighted. Israel is one of the world’s most innovative defence producers. From drones and missile defence systems like Iron Dome, to cyber-security solutions, sensors, and armoured vehicle upgrades, Israeli kit has repeatedly proven its worth on the battlefield. These systems are combat-tested, giving them a credibility no paper design can match.
Europe today faces a serious security challenge. Russia’s war in Ukraine has revealed how under-armed and under-prepared the continent is. Stockpiles are depleted, supply chains are stretched, and our defence industries cannot ramp up production quickly enough. In this environment, access to high-end Israeli systems should be regarded as essential. Banning Israeli officials from DSEI puts into question Britain’s and Europe’s relationship with a crucial ally with proven capabilities at a time when they are needed most.
And the UK’s armed forces clearly benefit from this relationship. The Royal Navy has integrated Israeli technology into its radar systems. The British Army has used Israeli drones in Afghanistan. Intelligence cooperation with Israel has disrupted terror plots on our soil. Jeopardising all this for ideological grandstanding is extremely irresponsible.
DSEI aims to showcase the best equipment, allowing governments and armed forces to acquire what they need for defence. By banning officials based on political hostility, Labour risks politicising the entire process. Selective moralising in the defence sector is a recipe for chaos. Allies will conclude that Britain cannot be trusted to put security above slogans. Competitors will exploit the vacuum. The UK defence industry itself, which relies on DSEI’s international platform, will also suffer as buyers and sellers look elsewhere.
There is another risk. Actions like this encourage extremists who want to delegitimise Israel completely. The boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement has long aimed to isolate Israel from global trade, research, and diplomacy. By adopting one of their key demands, Labour risks normalising a campaign that is not about peace, but about tearing down the Jewish state.
The message to Hamas, Hezbollah, and their supporters in Tehran is clear: continue the violence, and international pressure will do your work for you. The losers will be ordinary Israelis and Palestinians, who are pushed further from a sustainable peace, while Britain secures a propaganda victory for rejectionists.
Britain’s global standing is already fragile. Post-Brexit, allies and rivals alike are assessing whether London still has the strategic influence to shape outcomes. Defence exports and security partnerships are among the few areas where the UK genuinely retains influence. Labour’s plan would squander that.
The Gulf states, whose cooperation is crucial for energy security and counter-terrorism, will notice that Britain is aligning itself with the most strongly anti-Israeli positions in Europe. Israel itself remains a key partner in intelligence and innovation. It will be entirely justified in quietly reducing cooperation. Washington, always attentive to signs of wavering allied support for Israel, will doubt whether Britain can still be trusted.
All for what? A headline at home, another clear sign that Labour is running scared of sections of its domestic voter base, and applause from activists who mistake gesture politics for statecraft.
Foreign policy involves tough choices, not moral vanity. If Labour is genuinely committed to supporting a two-state solution, it should focus on rebuilding trust between Israelis and Palestinians, fostering security cooperation, and supporting moderates on both sides who still believe in compromise rather than endlessly rewarding Hamas. If it is truly committed to defending Britain, it must ensure our armed forces and allies have access to the best technology and best security partners.
Banning Israeli officials from DSEI serves no purpose. It compromises Britain’s security, erodes our alliances, and further hampers the chances for peace. It is the worst form of symbolic politics: loud, self-congratulatory, and strategically damaging. Britain deserves a foreign policy grounded in reality, not one written to please Labour’s flagging electorate.
Andrew Fox is a former company commander in the Parachute Regiment. He completed three operational tours in Afghanistan
To get more from opinion, click here to sign up for our free Editor's Picks newsletter.
