Which European States Are Arming Israel?

Many of the European countries continue to supply Israel with arms and weapons as it continues its military offensive on the Gaza Strip and in spite of the world accusation that Tel Aviv is committing genocide against the Palestinians.

Some European countries are top military suppliers, others are at the tail end but it is interesting to know that the great majority of European states sell weapons to Israel, its called the arms trade of Europe.

Anadolu compiled details of the European military sales to Israel since the outbreak of the war on Gaza after 7 October, 2023.

France, Italy and Germany, along with the United States have  accounted for 81% of the Middle East’s arms imports between 2019 and 2023, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

Israel’s military spending spiked by 24% to $27.5 billion following its attacks on Gaza. It became the second-largest arms spender in the Middle East.

From 2014 to 2022, the European Union granted export licenses to Israel worth about €6.3 billion ($6.8 billion).

These weapons are suspected to have contributed to the deaths of more than 38,000 civilians in Gaza, including 10,000 women and more than 15,000 children, the Turkish news agency states.

Although some EU countries, including Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain, decided to halt arms sales to Israel, press reports maintain this trade has somehow continued.

Key European arms suppliers

Germany remains Israel’s largest European arms supplier, providing about 30% of Israel’s imports between 2019 and 2023. In 2023. This is whilst German arms deliveries to Israel increased tenfold to €326.5 million and peaking after 7 October.

Most of France’s arms exports in 2019-2023 went to Middle East states accounting for 34% of the total French exports. Paris is known to provide parts for Israel’s missile defense system, known as the Iron Dome.

Despite laws restricting arms sales to human rights violators, Italy sold €2.1 million worth of weapons to Israel in the last quarter of 2023. Italian Defense Minister Guido Crosetto claimed there have been no new arms transfers to Israel since 7 October, although there are reports of ongoing sales by companies such as Leonardo. Italy’s export licenses to Israel between 2014 and 2022, including for warships, small arms, artillery, aircraft and ammunition, worth €114 million.

The UK issued more than £448 million ($576 million) in arms licenses to Israel since 2015. In addition, 15% of the materials used in the production of the F-35 fighter jets purchased by Israel since 2016 are supplied by British companies, according to the London-based charity Action on Armed Violence.

Spain has not reported any arms sales to Israel since 7 October, but data from November 2023 shows a transfer of ammunition worth €987,000. Between 2014 and 2022, Spain issued export licenses worth €99 million, including for ammunition and military vehicles.

Other European suppliers

The Netherlands issued €19 million in export licenses to Israel between 2014-2022, peaking at €10 million in 2022 alone. A court ruling in the country in 2024 halted exports of F-35 parts to Israel, citing the risk of violations of humanitarian law.

Despite halting arms sales, Belgium transferred €46 million in arms to Israel between 2014 and 2022, including explosives and aircraft parts.

Portugal issued more than €12.5 million in export licenses to Israel, most of it for aircraft-related materials.

Austria’s arms licenses to Israel totaled €33 million, Slovakia’s €117 million, and the Czech Republic’s arms exports totaled €127 million from 2014-2022, with recent deliveries of ballistic vests and military equipment.

Hungary’s sales exceeded €15 million, with notable contracts for the production of drones involving Israeli and German companies.

Poland’s €4.9 million in arms exports to Israel, Slovenia’s €6.1 million and Romania’s €427 million included aircraft, military vehicles and ammunition transfers.

Bulgaria’s €49 million in arms included explosives and light weapons.

Serbia’s state-owned Yugoimport-SDPR reported €14 million in arms exports to Israel in early 2024.

The total value of the 21 export licenses between Greece and Israel was recorded at €7.6 million.

Nordic, Baltic countries

Sweden issued licenses worth less than €1.3 million for weapon sights and control systems, with a significant contract with Israel’s Elbit Systems worth $170 million in late 2023.

Norwegian companies have reportedly circumvented restrictions prohibiting arms sales to conflict zones through foreign subsidiaries.

Licenses issued from Denmark to Israel are worth more than €1 million, while the issuance of licenses worth €403,000 in 2022 was the largest sale ever between the two countries. The country is facing a lawsuit from a group of non-governmental organizations over arms exports to Israel.

Finland’s €2.4 million in licenses covered electronic equipment, armor and weapon sights.

Latvia’s €5.9 million in licenses peaked at €4.1 million in 2022. Estonia and Lithuania had minimal exports of around €300,000 each, mostly small arms.

Croatia, Luxembourg, Malta, Southern Cyprus

Croatia’s €681,000 in licenses covered armaments and ammunition. Export licenses between Luxembourg and Israel amounted to approximately €671,000, while the total value of Malta’s export licenses to Israel exceeded €17.5 million.

Southern Cyprus’ licenses were worth €97,000, with alleged support for Western military logistics to Israel, the Turkish news agency pointed out.

Israel, flouting a UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate cease-fire, has faced international condemnation amid its continued brutal offensive on Gaza since an Oct. 7, 2023 attack by the Palestinian group Hamas.

CrossFireArabia

CrossFireArabia

Dr. Marwan Asmar holds a PhD from Leeds University and is a freelance writer specializing on the Middle East. He has worked as a journalist since the early 1990s in Jordan and the Gulf countries, and been widely published, including at Albawaba, Gulf News, Al Ghad, World Press Review and others.

Related Posts

Netanyahu, Iran and The ‘Destructive’ Israeli Personality

By Dr Adnan Naeem

The recent escalation between Israel and Iran suggests that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is currently experiencing one of his most complex and perplexing political moments. The man who has long relied on military force as a tool to resolve conflicts and impose realities now finds himself besieged by outcomes that fall short of his stated objectives and the immense cost borne by the entire region.

In Gaza, after months of war, destruction, and continuous military operations by the Israeli army, fundamental questions remain unanswered: Where is the victory promised to the Israelis? Where are the strategic achievements that justified the continuation of the war? The Gaza battle was transformed from a project for a swift resolution into an open-ended war of attrition, with the political, security, and humanitarian costs increasing daily and rapidly.

As for the northern front (Lebanon), Netanyahu has failed to impose the equations he repeatedly wanted to create. Instead of restoring Israel’s image of deterrence, new realities have emerged confirming that the region does not respond to threats, and that the power balance has become far too complex to be determined by the rhetoric of force or displays of military capability.

At the heart of these shifts, Iran has emerged as a model distinct from the many adversaries Israel has traditionally dealt with. Tehran does not merely declare its right to retaliate; it exercises this right whenever it perceives its interests or sovereignty are threatened. The recent regional confrontations demonstrated that a policy of threats is no longer sufficient to subdue or deter adversaries while military calculations have become far more costly and complex than Netanyahu imagined.

It is to be noted while Netanyahu sometimes speaks of opportunities for negotiation or security and political arrangements, he at the same time continues to generate the conditions for escalation. How can peace be built while the circle of confrontation widens? And how can the world be convinced of the seriousness of the political process when the language of force remains the sole instrument for managing the conflict?

He appears like a cunning fox, claiming to be engaged in negotiations for  peace but focusing on security matters rather than the political file. The security file establishes a limited, relative stability, not a lasting one, waiting to reignite conflict in the region, particularly on the Lebanese front.

Netanyahu works on downplaying and delaying the importance of resolving the political issue first. He thus evades political obligations and commitments under international pressure regarding Lebanese rights for instance, most importantly ( is a complete withdrawal, even from the Shebaa Farms, demarcation of borders, including maritime borders, and Lebanese rights to the gas fields off the Lebanese coast – the Karish field).

This contradiction reveals a crisis deeper than a mere disagreement over military tactics; it reflects a personal political predicament facing Netanyahu. He understands – as he approaches the general elections – that a ceasefire could open the door to domestic accountability regarding security and political failures, and could revive questions about his political future, not to mention corruption cases and crises such as his dismantling of the judicial system and the conscription of Haredim. Therefore, it seems the continuation of the tension gives him more room to maneuver than political compromises would.

Within Israel itself, and as the general elections approaches, the gap between Netanyahu and growing segments of society widens. The opposition is gaining strength, protests continue unabated and the families of fallen and wounded soldiers are raising their voices in an unprecedented manner. Meanwhile, criticism is mounting from security and military figures who believe the government lacks a clear vision to resolve the crisis.

Today, Netanyahu’s image resembles that of his missiles: Soaring into the sky, creating a deafening roar, but quickly returning to reality, where difficult questions and stubborn facts await him. Wars may postpone crises, but they do not eliminate them, and escalation may temporarily alter the landscape, but it does not create a lasting victory.

Conversely, the United States appears more inclined toward de-escalation and preventing the region from erupting into a full-blown war. Washington understands its strategic interests require containing the conflict, not expanding it. It prefers pursuing political and security arrangements that reduce the likelihood of a major confrontation. However, this approach clashes with Netanyahu’s desire to keep the region on the brink of conflagration, hoping to alter the facts on the ground or escape the demands of domestic politics.

Between heaven and earth, Netanyahu oscillates between the rhetoric of power and the reality of impotence, between his political ambitions and the limits of what military force can achieve. As for the region, it continues to pay the price for this oscillation, which has so far produced nothing but more tension and instability.

This article, written by Dr Adnan Naeem, an Israeli affairs expert, was published in the Arabic  Maannews website and reprinted in crossfirearabia.com

Continue reading
Iran: ‘Strategic Patience’ to ‘Sustained Confrontation’

By Najih Mohammad Ali

In a clear and direct language, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) affirmed that regional “peace and stability will not be achieved unless there is withdrawal from the occupied Lebanese territories.” This stance followed Hezbollah’s Secretary-General’s rejection of the Washington talks, emphasizing his refusal to separate the arenas and the “Dahieh for the North” equation.

This statement expresses a coherent strategic vision that considers regional stability inextricably linked to ending occupations and aggressions. It places the defense of Lebanon, Syria, and the region among Iran’s political and military priorities.

This shift to a strategy of “eternal war”—or continuous confrontation—and reflects a pragmatic and principled decision made by Tehran after decades of pressure and aggression. Iran did not abandon the idea of ​​a settlement in vain; rather, it realized that relying on partial agreements with Washington, which imposes unilateral conditions and disregards the rights of peoples, is no longer a viable option.

The cowardly assassination of Martyr Qassem Soleimani, followed by direct strikes targeting high-ranking Iranian leaders, including Supreme Leader Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, proved that relying solely on “strategic patience” is mistaken for weakness. Therefore, Iran has shifted to a doctrine of active deterrence based on the entire axis of resistance, making any aggression costly for its adversaries.

This transformation was not the result of the absolute dominance of a hardline faction, as Zionist-American narratives and their Arab proxies (and, of course, the Iranian opposition abroad) claim. Rather, it is a natural evolution of the Iranian elite that stood united in the face of external aggression.

After significant losses, the priority of maintaining national and revolutionary cohesion emerged. Defending revolutionary principles—exporting the spirit of resistance and confronting arrogance—has become an essential part of the regime’s identity that has become a source of strength to prevent internal collapse whilst uniting the people behind the leadership in the face of sanctions. Pragmatists and hardliners alike now agree that continued confrontation better protects national interests than concessions that could lead to disintegration.

The leaders of the Iranian regime believe—and I think they are right—that continuing the confrontation will yield greater strategic gains than any fragile peace agreement. History proves that America understands only the language of force and attrition. From Vietnam to Afghanistan, wars of attrition forced Washington to withdraw.

Today, the “Axis of Resistance” is cleverly applying this equation: Linking the arenas to prevent separate deals that would weaken Lebanon, Iraq, or Yemen, and imposes a heavy price on its adversaries. Iranian diplomacy has been transformed into the diplomacy of the field, as General Soleimani envisioned, and is now a flexible tool that buys time and exposes the contradictions of the other side, while maintaining full military readiness.

The American-Israeli strikes have already altered Tehran’s calculations in favor of adopting an offensive-defensive posture. Instead of settling for limited responses, Iran is developing comprehensive deterrent capabilities through its natural allies, who represent the will of the region’s peoples in the face of occupation.

This is a calculated escalation, a precise strategic calculation based on resilience and strategic depth. Within the elite, a balance prevails between caution, fearing losses, and resolve, which sees resistance as the only path to dignity and independence.

Compared to the previous “strategic patience,” the strategy of sustained confrontation has proven effective in preserving battlefield gains and preventing the regional collapse of the resistance axis. It has succeeded in exhausting the enemy and strengthening internal unity, despite economic challenges primarily attributed to unjust sanctions, not Iranian policy.

The most serious risk facing this strategy lies in the possibility of miscalculation by adversaries and their attempts to impose a full-scale war, but Iran has repeatedly demonstrated an exceptional capacity for resilience and adaptation.

We are indeed facing a “simmering cold war,” where there is no false peace imposed by force, nor a total war that destroys everyone. This situation serves Iran and its axis because it maintains the strategic balance, prevents surrender, and opens the door to a comprehensive and just settlement based on withdrawal from occupied territories and respect for the sovereignty of states.

In conclusion, this “perpetual war” relies on the long-term vision of the Iranian character. It is not a whim, but an existential choice imposed by the ongoing aggression against Iran and the peoples of the region.

Iran is defending itself and the dignity of the nation, and affirms that true stability begins with ending aggression, occupation, and foreign interference. This path, despite its difficulties, reinforces Tehran’s position as an indispensable regional power and paves the way for a new balance of power that respects the rights of peoples. The region needs such firm stances to achieve an honorable peace, not surrender.

The author is a researcher in Iranian and regional affairs and this article is reproduced from the Arabic Al Rai Al Youm website and reprinted in crossfirearabia.com.

Continue reading

You Missed

Palestinian Journalists Under Attack – 55 Israeli Violations in May

Palestinian Journalists Under Attack – 55 Israeli Violations in May

Jordan Footballers Delighted For World Cup Matches

Jordan Footballers Delighted For World Cup Matches

World Cup: Trump, Political Footballing and Iran – A View From Amman

World Cup: Trump, Political Footballing and Iran – A View From Amman

A Red Flower And a Little Love

A Red Flower And a Little Love

Diving in a War Zone

Diving in a War Zone

Netanyahu, Iran and The ‘Destructive’ Israeli Personality

Netanyahu, Iran and The ‘Destructive’ Israeli Personality