The new UK government, under Sir Keir Starmer, claims to support Israel's right to self-defence. Yet, simultaneously, in the past few months it has enacted multiple policies that weaken Israel's security and threaten regional stability. This contradictory approach is not just confusing — it’s dangerous.

Much of the push to limit support for Israel comes from activist NGOs and the unverified and misleading information they market. These organisations distort the facts and complexities of the conflict in order to influence important government decisions, such as the partial arms embargo enacted this week. Other British policies that followed similar NGO campaigns include the abandoning of challenges to the International Criminal Court’s pursuit of arrest warrants for top Israeli officials and the decision to resume funding to UNRWA despite links to terrorist activities.

By validating the false narratives of biased NGOs, the UK government is undermining its commitments to help Israel defend against Iran and the latter’s global terror network, as well as normalising antisemitism and jeopardising the safety of British Jewish communities.

For years, politicised NGOs have lobbied the UK government to impose an arms embargo against Israel as part of broader efforts to limit Israeli self-defence measures. The war that began when Hamas brutally murdered more than 1,200 people in Israel, kidnapped 251 others, and committed other unspeakable atrocities became an excuse for NGOs to intensify their efforts.

On October 18 2023, a coalition of activist NGOs, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), sent a letter to the then-Secretary of State for International Trade, Kemi Badenoch, demanding an immediate suspension of all arms exports. By December, they escalated with legal proceedings, statements, petitions, and further letters to key officials falsely accusing the UK of complicity in “genocide”.

The persistence eventually led to policy impacts. Just days ago, the UK suspended 30 arms export licences to Israel, claiming a "clear risk" that the equipment could be used in serious violations of international law. This decision, while framed as only a partial embargo, achieves the core result sought by NGO activists: weakening Israel’s image and legitimate right to defend itself at a time of intense threats.

On May 21 the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutor requested authorisation to issue arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, along with Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar and the commander of Hamas’s military wing, Mohammed Diab Ibrahim Al-Masri. The charges included war crimes and crimes against humanity for both the Israeli and Hamas terrorist officials, effectively putting them on the same moral level. The then-UK Prime Minister Rishi Sunak swiftly and rightly declared, “There is no moral equivalence between a democratic state exercising its lawful right to self defence and the terrorist group Hamas.”

Concerned that ICC warrants would undermine Israel’s right to defend itself from terrorist groups like Hamas, Sunak’s administration planned to challenge the ICC's jurisdiction – arguing that the Oslo Accords, signed by Israel and the Palestinians, and recognised by the international community, prevented the Court from prosecuting Israeli nationals. However, they never got the chance.

Over the nine weeks that followed, intense NGO lobbying pressured the incoming UK government to reconsider this position. Influential groups like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, GLAN and Al-Haq pushed an outrageous narrative, claiming that asking the ICC to respect binding treaties was somehow inconsistent with “justice.”

On July 26, the government changed, and with that so did the UK’s stance on Israel. The newly elected government, heavily pressured by anti-Israel advocacy NGOs acting under the flag of international law, dropped opposition to the ICC arrest warrants. This leaves Israeli leaders open for prosecution for defending their nation against heinous acts of terrorism.

Another alarming example of the UK government bowing to these campaigns is the decision to restore funding to UNRWA, the United Nations agency tasked with providing humanitarian assistance to Palestinian refugees in Gaza and other places in the region. In January, the UK government was among 16 countries that halted funding to UNRWA after it was revealed that, among other connections to terrorism and blatant antisemitism, 12 of the agency’s employees had participated in the October 7 attacks. Despite this serious breach, a coalition of NGOs, including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Oxfam, soon began lobbying intensively for the UK to reinstate its financial support.

In letters and statements, this coalition simply ignored the systemic abuse that, for years, has crippled humanitarian efforts in Gaza, and did not demand UNRWA introduce necessary radical reforms. They also failed to address the implications of renewing UNRWA’s access to funds and resources in light of the direct involvement in heinous acts of terrorism. Ultimately, the UK resumed its financial support for UNRWA without securing any meaningful changes from the agency, further normalising terror, anti-Israel sentiment, and antisemitism in the public sphere.

These policy decisions not only undermine Israel’s right to defend itself but also weaken the broader British commitment to countering the Iranian threat. Any positive steps – such as levying sanctions on Iran and providing defensive military support to Israel during Iran’s direct attack in April and ongoing threats – are compromised by limiting arms exports and joining in the ICC’s attack. These actions strengthen Iran-aligned groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, and embolden the very forces the UK seeks to counter.

If the Starmer government wishes to maintain its role as a democracy that defends its citizens and promotes global security against threats from nations like Iran, it must stop listening to the false narratives of NGOs and enacting policies that question Israel’s right to exist and defend itself. A balanced, fact-based approach is crucial to protecting both its own national interests and the broader stability of the Middle East.

Olga Deutsch is Vice President of NGO Monitor (www.ngo-monitor.org), a Jerusalem-based research institute