 So on Monday, 14th of May, as you probably know by now, the Israeli military killed 60 Palestinians and injured 2,771 in Gaza. These were adults and children. Medesan San Frontier said that most of the wounded will be condemned to suffer lifelong injuries, 2,771 people. Amnesty International, world's leading human rights organization, accused the Israeli military of committing what appeared to be willful killings constituting war crimes. And here's a final quote. This is from Sarah Lee Whitson. She's a director of the Middle East Division of Human Rights Watch, the perhaps world's second leading human rights organization. And she said this, the policy of Israeli authorities to fire irrespective of whether there's an immediate threat to life on Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza caged in for a decade and under occupation for half a century has resulted in the bloodbath that anyone could have foreseen. Now the argument that I want to make in this short video is that this isn't just Israeli violence. Given that Britain arms is well, given that Israel is a leading regional ally of the UK, this is to a significant extent our violence as well. Let me give you an example of that. Amongst the arms that have been sold to Israel, like components for military aircraft and stuff like that, just over the past six months, according to data compiled by Campaign Against Arms Trade, you find small arms ammunition and assault rifles. So this is stuff just in the last six months that could potentially have been used on Monday to kill those and injure those Palestinian civilians. Now the British government has a line in response to criticism like that and the line is this, we have the strictest arms controls in the world or amongst the strictest arms control in the world and we don't sell arms where there's a clear risk that they could be used in violation of international law. But as I showed in a report that I wrote in 2015 for war on one campaign against arms trade and Palestine solidarity campaign about British arms sales to Israel, these arms controls are pretty much worthless. Actually what we find over the last 10 years when we look at each of these conflicts around Gaza is that after the event the British government has been forced to admit that actually British kit, British arms could well have been used by the Israelis in the conflict or was used by the Israelis in the conflict that they could well have been used in violation, serious violation of international law. And of course, admitting this after the event and after the people have been killed and injured is of course too late. It's not just a question of whether individual pieces of British kit, individual British arms, British sold arms, have been using individual acts that may or may not violate international law. It goes a bit deeper than that. To so-called Israeli defence force, the Israeli military, its prime function at the moment is to enforce the occupation of the Palestinian territories that is to say the siege of Gaza and the occupation and colonisation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Now the colonisation of East Jerusalem and the West Bank is a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. It's absolutely against international law, it's unambiguously, to conquer territory and then to colonise it by force. And as we know from history, it's inherent to a settler colonial project like that, to have violence against civilians, violence against the population that's already living there. The sort of acts that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch and others have documented over the years and over the decades again and again and again. Behave your body as well in defence force. What you find is indiscriminate killing of civilians, indiscriminate harassment of civilians, locking people up without charge, without trial indefinitely, torture, etc, etc, etc. And this is conducted against adults and against children. So given that record and given the functional most of the idea of enforcing this illegal colonisation, it seems to me to be completely out of order that Britain should sell any arms to that Israeli defence force at all, not on a case by case basis, but just forced up. And it's not just about arms exports to Israel, it's also about importing arms from Israel. Let me give an example of that. New drone being used by the British military, the Watchkeeper drone, was developed in a joint venture funded by the Ministry of Defence involving a British arms firm and Elbit, an Israeli arms firm. Now Elbit created this drone and fought a British army based on the Israeli Hermes drone and the Hermes drone is a drone that was used that has been used, continues to be used by the IDF on the occupied Palestinians. So here the British are helping the Israelis to profit from the violence of the occupation. We can debate BDS, we can debate the merits of boycott divestment sanctions, we can debate that the way in which BDS might be applied, should it be applied quite broadly including cultural, staff, sports, academia, should it just be focused more directly on settlement related activities, we can have that debate as a legitimate. But one thing it seems to me that we should all be able to agree on as a pretty basic point is you shouldn't be sending arms to people who are in serial violation, systematic violation of international law and indiscriminately killing civilians in the way that we saw a few days ago. That should be pretty much a no brainer. Now British arms sales to Israel are not a usually significant proportion of Israel's overall arms imports, it's mainly dependent on the United States rather than the UK. But it seems to me that one bullet is too many, one rifle is too many if they're going to be used in the way they were used on people in Gaza a few days ago. And there's a bigger point to be made here, if Britain was to impose a two way arms embargo on Israel that is to say no exports and no imports that would send a pretty clear political message given that Britain is still a significant player on the world stage as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and one of the biggest economies in the world. So politically it would be quite damaging for the Israelis and crucially it could help to create more political space for a future US president a Bernie Sanders or someone like that to apply pressure from the American side and that really would have an effect. The real point here that I want to stress is that whether we're talking about Saudi atrocities in Yemen or Israeli atrocities in Gaza to the extent that we arm these parties this is to a large extent our violence as much as theirs and if it's to some extent our violence as much as theirs then there's also that also means that there's something that we can do about it ourselves.