The Israeli military has killed thousands of civilians in Gaza since October 7, 2023. The British government has not condemned the violence in Gaza since the October 7, 2023 conflict. The British rapper at Glastonbury 2025 has been criticized for his comments. When Bobby Vylan ended his set with the phrase “Death to the Israeli army”, he drew immediate criticism from Prime Minister Keir Starmer and the Israeli embassy in London. The BBC quickly apologised for broadcasting the performance live. This response says it all. This glaring contrast is telling: silence on civilian deaths, but quick condemnation of protest speech about Israel. It exposes an uncomfortable truth about UK military support to Israel. Artists face investigation for expressing opposition onstage or in public. Meanwhile, the UK continues approving arms exports and training Israeli troops on British soil.
Silence on War, Outrage at Words
Last year, between October and December alone, Labour approved more arms exports licences to Israel than the Conservatives approved between 2020 and 2023. This was in spite of the government’s announcement of a part suspension in September 2024. These approvals further cement the reality of ongoing UK military support to Israel, even as the civilian death toll in Gaza escalates.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned British rapper Bobby Vylan for his critical remarks about the Israeli military during his June 2025 performance at Glastonbury. The line “Death to the IDF,” uttered at the end of his set, immediately caused an uproar.
The BBC issued a prompt apology for airing the performance live, and the Israeli embassy in London expressed strong outrage. Avon and Somerset Police said Bob Vylan’s performance, along with that by Irish-language band Kneecap, were now subject to a criminal investigation and has been “recorded as a public order incident.”
UK–Israel Military Ties: Quiet, Ongoing, and Concerning
Amid growing political tension and public scrutiny, UK military support to Israel remains active and largely unchallenged by those in power. In a 2025 investigation by Action on Armed Violence (AOAV), the British Ministry of Defence admitted it is currently training a “limited number” of Israeli Defence Forces personnel in the UK.
While the British government avoids challenging Israeli military actions abroad, it has shown no hesitation in punishing domestic voices that speak out. The Bobby Vylan controversy is a case in point.
BBC management quickly issued a statement expressing regret over the broadcast and condemned what it called “antisemitic sentiments”.
Political Double Standards and Public Criticism
This imbalance is not lost on the public. Growing numbers of British citizens, especially from younger and minority communities, view the government’s stance as hypocritical. They see a government that condemns protest music yet stays silent on mass civilian deaths; that prosecutes domestic dissent while continuing UK military support to Israel without transparency or accountability.
The Labour government is making a grave mistake. Since the war began, Gaza’s Health Ministry has tracked civilian deaths in the region. It regularly publishes detailed lists of those killed in Israeli attacks. The most recent count, on 25 June, reported 56,200 deaths. But some people have questioned the reliability of the ministry’s figures and the studies based on them. Their concerns grew as medical centres—key data sources—were destroyed or disabled during ongoing Israeli strikes. The reliance on the UK’s military, economic or political cooperation with Israel has continued.
Britain is still supplying arms to a country whose leader is wanted by the International Criminal Court.
Many have voiced concern over Britain’s military ties with Israel. Wes Streeting, the current Health Secretary, recently made headlines by telling Israeli officials to “get your house in order” regarding the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
The growing disconnect between public opinion and government policy suggests the debate over UK–Israel relations is far from settled.
UK military support to Israel
UK military support to Israel, combined with silencing critics, shows a deep contradiction in British policy. The government favours silence over accountability and censorship over free speech.
UK industry makes 15% of every F-35 in contracts CAAT estimates to be worth at least £500m since 2016, and is the most significant part of the UK arms industry with Israel.
At least 14 British military shipments to Israel since October 2023 have included over 8,500 explosive munitions, as well as 150,000 rounds of ammunition in October 2023 alone.
Legal Challenges & Accountability: Navigating the Gun–Speech Paradox
The controversy around UK military support to Israel isn’t just political—it’s now playing out in British courts. The High Court made its decision against Al Haq in June 2025. The Palestinian rights group Al Haq filed a legal challenge because they believed the UK became responsible for potential international humanitarian law in Gaza through its F 35 fighter jet component supplies. The court determined that strategic decisions belong to the government rather than the judicial authority.
This judgment revealed a clear paradox in the system. The courts supported continued arms exports by the UK government. At the same time, the government targeted public dissent with legal action. Police investigated protesters and artists like Bobby Vylan under public order laws. Some were accused of hate speech for criticising Israeli military actions. Meanwhile, campaigners such as Palestine Action face the threat of being barred from peaceful protest under the Terrorism Act, as recently highlighted by George Monbiot.
The UK armed the IDF through official channels while penalising domestic voices that criticised Israel This duality illustrates a democracy under strain. Legal tools meant for accountability now protect policies that prioritise foreign military ties over civil liberties.
This legal contradiction reveals a deeper problem in democratic oversight. True accountability needs more than court appeals or legal processes. It requires clear policies, open debate, and protection for dissent, especially when it challenges powerful international alliances.
