After previously claiming that the UK has “provided surveillance support to Israel”, a Minister has now said that UK surveillance aircraft are “not flying in support of Israel”.

It is understood that British surveillance aircraft are operating in the region to “observe the risk of escalation in the region, to inform decision making in the UK MOD, and for nothing else”.

The perceived contradiction in James Heappey’s statements, Minister of State for the Armed Forces, stems from the differing emphases and contexts of these statements.

In his initial remark, Heappey speaks of the deployment of 12 aircraft to the eastern Mediterranean, highlighting their role in providing surveillance support to Israel, preventing the transfer of weapons to terrorist groups, and aiding regional security and humanitarian efforts in Egypt.

This statement, with its explicit mention of support for Israel, suggests a direct and particular commitment to Israeli interests in the region. The scope of activities mentioned here is broad, ranging from security to humanitarian aid, indicating a multifaceted mission but with a significant focus on Israel.

In contrast, Heappey’s subsequent clarification shifts. He specifies that the Rivet Joint aircraft’s mission is not for direct support of Israel, but to observe the risk of escalation in the region.

This nuanced explanation reframes the UK’s involvement as primarily concerned with broader regional stability and the Ministry of Defence’s internal decision-making. This emphasis on monitoring for regional escalation, as opposed to directly supporting Israel, appears to contrast with the implications of the initial statement.

This seeming contradiction is likely a matter of context and perspective, rather than an actual inconsistency in policy. The purpose of the clarification seems to be to underscore the UK’s wider strategic interests in the region, which include but are not limited to the security of Israel.

George Allison
George has a degree in Cyber Security from Glasgow Caledonian University and has a keen interest in naval and cyber security matters and has appeared on national radio and television to discuss current events. George is on Twitter at @geoallison

23 COMMENTS

  1. And this is why they never used to comment on the uses of this aircraft and it’s predecessors. It’s a very sensitive area!

  2. Fair enough. Surveillance only. Agree with that.
    It’s not as if Israel is a NATO nation or even an ally we have a defence treaty with. They have been distinctly cool towards the UK and if I remember correctly, like France, kept advisors and technicians in Argentina to help the Argentinian air force during the Falklands war, see Dagger aircraft.

  3. A question, why is it considered a problem for the UK to admit that there is real politik and defence agreement with the IDF.
    After all thanks to Elbit, IMI etc our chasllenger tanks now have protection from antitank weapons and our aircraft both civilian and military are protected by the relevant warning and counter measure systems.
    I would rather have Israel as a Nato member than Erdogan’s Turkey unless of course that some of the commentators here have issues with that nation protecting itself from Iranian proxy entites such the terrorsts of Hamas and Hezbollah.

    • I’d agree, happy for Israel to join NATO but that would require a lot of negotiation around military action and authorising action. Then there is the issue of NATO article V being triggered next time Hammas or the Hezbollah factions attacked Israel.

    • It’s interest re Turkey no one seems to mention their occupation of Cyprus and Turkeys pumping over 100,000 sellers into Cyprus since 1974. As with the stateless Kurt’s again completely ignore by some in the political area in the UK.

  4. As I mentioned before, I understand the UK had/has the lead in the ME area regards UKUSA agreement, then joined by CAN,AUS, NZ. This is/was SOP between the 5 Anglo nations.
    I would think these flights are in direct relation to GCHQ NSA’s activities in that area, and nothing whatsoever to do with providing direct support to Israel.
    I’m surprised, or maybe I should not be in the least surprised, that a government minister does not understand this, put his foot in it, and was required to clarify.

  5. It’s almost a case of our government wimps are afraid of showing solidarity with and helping Israel. When that country is being attacked by genocidal islamist maniacs! Supporting a fellow parliamentary democracy with universal suffrage, should be considered a duty. In this case it’s an honour.
    Go Israel, Go, go, go the IDF. Show the enemy no mercy!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here