Humanitarian Rhetoric, Strategic Interests, and the Politics of Contradiction: UNSC, Arms Exports, and the Gaza Conflict

The Israel–Gaza conflict serves as a lens through which the inconsistencies of global diplomacy are revealed. On one side, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) and General Assembly (UNGA) are platforms rich with humanitarian discourse: repeated calls for ceasefires, humanitarian corridors, and a sustainable two-state solution are common. Conversely, the same nations making these declarations often bolster Israel’s military strength through arms sales, collaborative defence initiatives, and diplomatic protection. The disparity between rhetoric and action has seldom been so pronounced. The events of 2024-2025 - notably the mass walk-out during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s UNGA speech and the debate over the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) arrest warrant against him - sharply illustrate these tensions. They also emphasize the interaction between normative actions (symbolic condemnation), legal frameworks (international courts), and material interests (defence trade). For intelligence experts and business stakeholders, these contradictions are not just theoretical; they influence reputational risk, regulatory landscapes, and the predictability of state actions. This article explores the interaction of humanitarian rhetoric, arms exports, symbolic protest, and legal accountability, with a focus on the roles of the UK, US, and France.

The UK: Rhetoric of Restraint, Practice of Supply

The United Kingdom’s diplomatic discourse at the UNSC has consistently endorsed humanitarian values. It has backed resolutions advocating for ceasefires, the removal of aid restrictions, and the safeguarding of civilians. In its addresses, the UK has emphasized the necessity of reviving the two-state solution and condemned attacks on civilians, including the deaths of over 65,000 Palestinians and the destruction of hospitals and essential infrastructure in Gaza (BBC, 2024). Yet, beneath these declarations lies a more intricate reality. Between October and December 2024, the UK sanctioned £127.6 million in export licenses to Israel - a significant rise compared to previous years (UK Gov, 2025). These licenses encompassed advanced targeting systems, radars, and components for F-35 fighter jets, which Israel has actively used in Gaza. The government halted around 30 licenses in September 2024 after determining there was a “clear risk” of their use in breaches of international humanitarian law. However, notably, it excluded exports of F-35 components, citing the necessity to sustain NATO and allied supply chains. This exemption underscores the dual pressures on policymakers: humanitarian concerns on one side, alliance obligations and industrial commitments on the other. Legal challenges ensued, but in June 2025, the UK High Court upheld the government’s discretion, ruling that F-35 components could continue to be exported despite the acknowledged risks of misuse (Reuters, 2025). For analysts, this episode highlights the tension between legislative rhetoric and defence trade realities.

The United States: Strategic Consistency, Humanitarian Contradictions

The United States exhibits a unique form of duality. Washington stands as Israel's largest military supporter, allocating $3.8 billion annually in military assistance (CBS, 2025). At the UNSC, it has consistently protected Israel by using vetoes to block resolutions aimed at enforcing stronger accountability measures. In this regard, there is alignment between its diplomatic actions and material support. Unlike the UK, which attempts to balance humanitarian rhetoric with defence trade, the US makes no secret of its priority: Israel's security is paramount. The contradiction emerges in the disparity between this position and the normative commitments enshrined in international law. The US frequently justifies its support as lawful under the self-defence doctrine, yet the vetoes and military aid starkly contrast with the growing international consensus on humanitarian protection in Gaza. This divergence has reputational repercussions, further isolating Washington in UN votes and intensifying perceptions of hypocrisy.

France: Navigating Between Principles and Industry

France finds itself in a middle position. Similar to the UK, it has supported humanitarian resolutions and reaffirmed its commitment to a two-state solution. French representatives in New York have cautioned against excessive use of force and emphasized the importance of humanitarian access (UN News, 2025). Simultaneously, France has continued arms sales to Israel, albeit on a smaller scale - approximately €40 million in 2024. This duality reflects broader European challenges. On one hand, EU nations take pride in their normative leadership in international humanitarian law; on the other, many remain involved in global defence industries and cooperative programs with Israel. In France, parliamentary debates have increasingly questioned the compatibility of arms exports with humanitarian commitments. However, as of 2025, exports have not been halted, revealing the same contradictions seen in London and Washington, though on a smaller scale.

The Symbolism of Walking Out

Perhaps the most striking moment of 2025 occurred on 26 September, when Netanyahu addressed the UNGA. As he began his speech, over 50 delegations stood up and exited the chamber (Reuters, 2025). Cameras captured the emptying hall, a clear symbol of rejection. Walk-outs are significant acts. They are the diplomatic equivalent of withdrawing consent from a performance. In normative terms, they strip a speaker of legitimacy, indicating that their narrative is no longer acceptable within the community of states. However, walk-outs are also about building coalitions. Rarely does a single state act alone; instead, delegations coordinate their exit to demonstrate solidarity and test others' willingness to align. In this instance, the walk-out foreshadowed subsequent recognitions of Palestinian statehood and intensified calls for accountability. While a walk-out carries no legal authority, its reputational impact is significant. For Israel, the sight of mass delegations leaving in unison signalled increasing diplomatic isolation. For businesses and investors, such symbolism is not trivial: reputational dynamics at the UN can sway public opinion, shape regulatory discussions, and heighten pressure for sanctions or divestment campaigns.

The ICC Arrest Warrant and the Limits of Enforcement

The second pivotal event was the issuance of an arrest warrant by the ICC in November 2024 for Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant. These warrants accused them of war crimes and crimes against humanity during military actions in Gaza (ICC, 2024). According to the Rome Statute, countries that are members of the ICC must arrest and hand over individuals with such warrants if they enter their territory. However, when Netanyahu visited New York in September 2025, he was not detained. The reasons for this are both legal and political. The United States is not a signatory to the Rome Statute and is therefore not required to enforce ICC warrants (HRW, 2025). Additionally, reports suggested that Netanyahu's flight path was planned to avoid the airspace of ICC member countries to reduce the risk of enforcement (Guardian, 2025). This incident underscored a significant truth: while the ICC can issue warrants, their execution ultimately relies on the cooperation of states.

For many observers, the sight of a head of government under an ICC warrant addressing the UNGA underscored the gap between international norms and practical enforcement. For states that walked out, the warrant amplified the symbolic weight of their protest.

Evidence in Contrast: Votes, Exports, and Events

The contradictions between rhetoric and practice become clearer when visualised.

UNSC Voting Patterns (2023–2025):

Country	Ceasefire Resolutions (2023)	Two-State Solution Support	Humanitarian Access Votes
UK	Yes	Yes	Yes
USA	Veto/No	Mixed	Veto/No
France	Yes	Yes	Yes

 

The table shows how the UK and France consistently supported humanitarian resolutions, while the US often blocked them through vetoes.

Arms Exports and Military Aid (2021–2024):

Here, the divergence is sharp: UK exports spiked in 2024 despite rhetorical emphasis on restraint, US aid remained constant at $3.8 billion annually, and France maintained modest but steady exports.

Key Diplomatic and Legal Events (2024–2025):

The timeline illustrates the interaction between legal instruments (ICC warrants, UK High Court ruling) and symbolic acts (UNGA walk-out). Together, they reveal a dynamic where legal and normative signals exist but are mediated by political decisions and defence industry imperatives.

 

Implications for Business Intelligence

For governments, these contradictions reveal weaknesses in their reputations. Nations that claim to lead in humanitarian efforts yet continue to export weapons risk being labelled as hypocritical, which can undermine their diplomatic standing and lead to legal challenges. For companies, particularly those in the defence and dual-use industries, the implications are concrete. Export licenses can be suddenly revoked, legal actions might question company operations, and reputational risks can affect investor trust and civil society initiatives. In the UK, for instance, legal action concerning F-35 components targeted government policy rather than the companies themselves, but the suppliers of those components still faced reputational scrutiny. For intelligence analysts and risk managers, the crucial takeaway is that symbolic actions like walk-outs and ICC warrants serve as early indicators of changes in the normative landscape. While they may not have immediate legal effects, they suggest potential increases in reputational, regulatory, and diplomatic pressures. Analysing these events alongside export data and voting trends provides a deeper understanding of how international behaviour is shifting.

Conclusion

The Israel-Gaza conflict has highlighted the inconsistencies in international diplomacy. The UK, US, and France advocate for humanitarianism at the UN while continuing to support Israel with arms exports and military aid. The UNGA walk-out against Netanyahu and the ICC warrant for his arrest highlight the growing divide between norms and enforcement, rhetoric and actions. For both businesses and governments, the message is clear: rhetoric should not be taken at face value. The true measure of state behaviour lies at the intersection of diplomatic stances, defence economics, and legal frameworks. It is within these contradictions - between what states declare and what they actually do - that reputational risks, compliance challenges, and strategic opportunities arise.