David Cameron, Britain’s Foreign Secretary and former Prime Minister, used the Sunday Times this week to clarify that the U.K.’s support for Israel “is not unconditional” and that the country is expected to “abide by international humanitarian law.” Cameron’s statement follows airstrikes on April 1 that killed seven World Central Kitchen aid workers, sparking global outrage as the Israeli Defense Forces continue to face accusations of potential war crimes. Polls in Britain reflect significant opposition and minimal support for continued arms sales to Israel, echoing international disapproval of the I.D.F.’s actions and a shift in stance among Israel’s allies. Among the seven killed were three British nationals, all former armed forces members, provoking a strong reaction at home, with multiple newspapers expressing outrage and public demonstrations against the attacks.

On April 9, Cameron reaffirmed that the U.K.’s legal investigation did not substantiate war crimes and that arms exports would therefore continue. The opposition Labour Party, legal experts, and the public have demanded publication of the Conservative government’s legal analysis. Although the government has promised transparency, it also emphasized that historically, this type of legal advice has not been released. Should British ministers determine Israel has breached international humanitarian law, arms sales could potentially be banned — and, based on Cameron’s comments, likely would be. However, none of Israel’s allies have yet taken this step, and for Britain to do so could risk future relations with Israel. Conscious of this, Cameron emphasized that “Israel remains a vital defensive security partner to the U.K.,” reiterating his nation’s stance until compelling evidence justifies ending the partnership.

The killing of the seven aid workers has led to small internal and operational adjustments within the I.D.F. to prevent a repeat disaster. Israel promptly apologized for the strike, launched an investigation that led to the dismissal of two officers and the “reprimanding” of three others, and assured that such incidents will not recur. But are these measures sufficient to protect aid workers? And shouldn’t the deaths of three British veterans, potentially struck by British-supplied missiles, compel the United Kingdom to take more decisive action?

The truth is that Israel is no longer a geopolitically insignificant state struggling to defend itself. Its economy is substantial for its size — it is the most developed country in Western Asia and among the richest per capita in the region. By contrast, Palestine ranks near the bottom in these categories, largely due to decades of Israeli occupation and significant control over its economy. Despite this, Hamas has won, and Israel has lost this war. Israel may never regain the respect, stability, or influence it had before the October 7 attacks. The global community has turned against Israel, its economy is declining as the war continues, and Benjamin Netanyahu’s pursuit of personal validation has become a driving force in the ongoing violence. It is apparent that Israel’s actions have extended beyond ‘self-defense,’ achieving Hamas’s goal of eroding worldwide trust and support for Israel. On April 12, Norway, Ireland, and Spain announced their commitment to begin the process of recognizing a Palestinian state. The International Court of Justice (I.C.J.) has condemned Israel for failing to prevent genocide, following a case brought by South Africa in January.

One point is clear: the continued supply of unnecessary arms to Israel must end. Foreign powers are enabling Benjamin Netanyahu to unleash devastation, harming children and civilians to secure his own approval. Although the British government does not directly sell arms to Israel, it licenses private arms companies to conduct these transactions. The public is demanding that these companies stop sending millions of pounds worth of weapons, which have resulted in thousands of Palestinian deaths — and now, the deaths of three British citizens. Yet Israel remains the U.K.’s second-largest trading partner after the United States, with trade bringing in around £8 billion annually. Britain hosts more than 300 Israeli companies, according to the Britain Israel Communications and Research Centre. Although cutting ties with Israel may be the ethical course, it remains politically and economically implausible for the Conservative government.

What the government must do instead is make the legal advice public, as Labour Party leader Sir Keir Starmer and his party have advocated. Cameron and Prime Minister Rishi Sunak have voiced their openness to revisiting weapons sales and have insisted Netanyahu must adjust his policies to maintain U.K. cooperation. However, no concrete actions have been taken to justify continued support, and the legal advice remains undisclosed, raising questions about its contents. The government claims the report lacks sufficient evidence of Israeli war crimes, a claim contested by various international bodies. In her March report for the United Nations Human Rights Council, U.N. Special Rapporteur for Palestine Francesca Albanese indicated clear signs of Israel violating three articles of the U.N. Genocide Convention. In January, the I.C.J. found that some alleged acts by Israel fell under the Genocide Convention’s provisions — raising the question of how much more evidence has surfaced in the months since.

The release of this legal advice is non-negotiable. A democratic government’s duty is to provide its citizens with the rationale behind major decisions, especially when so many lives are at risk. If the report is found lacking or omitting harsh truths, it will be up to the British public to voice their objections even more strongly. London has already been a significant hub for pro-Palestinian protests, and the hope is that its citizens, along with others nationwide, will continue to rally if necessary. Should this report be unsatisfactory, it could shift foreign policy opinion toward Labour in the upcoming general election. In the meantime, Britain must tread cautiously in its support of Israel  — history will not remember its people favorably should it be complicit in a genocide.