![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/iran\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/cfb970a3-9cc2-4fe6-8bce-b81601f52634-700x394.jpg\")
Elbit Systems or a mere extension of the Israeli military-industrial complex?<\/p>\nExecutive SummaryElbit Systems or a mere extension of the Israeli military-industrial complex?<\/p>\n
This paper argues that Elbit Systems, Israel\u2019s largest arms manufacturer, occupies a central position in the military campaign in Gaza and therefore faces increasing scrutiny over its potential connection to alleged violations of international humanitarian law. It outlines how Elbit supplies a substantial share of the Israeli military\u2019s artillery ammunition, tank shells, drones, loitering munitions, precision rockets and guided bomb systems, many of which have reportedly been used in Gaza during operations that have resulted in significant civilian casualties. The paper also examines the role of Elbit\u2019s UK subsidiaries, highlighting allegations by campaign groups and investigative journalists that British-based companies within the Elbit group contribute components and technology to Israeli military supply chains, while noting that the company denies involvement in supplying munitions to Israel and that no criminal findings have been made. Finally, the authors consider the prosecution of Palestine Action activists who targeted Elbit facilities in Britain, arguing that applying terrorism legislation to such actions risks conflating criminal damage and political protest with terrorism, particularly where the stated aim was to disrupt the supply of military equipment linked to the conflict in Gaza.<\/p>\n
General Overview<\/p>\n
Since waging its offensive in response to the attacks on 7 October 2023, Israel has been accused of carrying out a genocide against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. A report published by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on 16 September 2025 concluded that Israel was carrying out acts amounting to genocide.<\/p>\n
In its provisional measures order, the ICJ concluded that at least some of the rights claimed by South Africa under the Genocide Convention were plausible and directed Israel to take all measures within its power to prevent acts prohibited by the Convention.\u2019[1]<\/a><\/p>\n More recently, a report published on 16 September 2025 by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, found that Israel has been carrying out a genocide since the October attacks.[2]<\/a><\/p>\n Against this backdrop, Elbit Systems, Israel\u2019s largest arms company, has stated that the attacks and the offensive by Israel on the Gaza Strip have increased demand for its products.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n Elbit Systems is privately owned and provides 80% of the weapons and equipment for Israel\u2019s land forces and 85% of the combat drones used by the air force.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n Overview of the Supply of Munitions by Elbit Systems to the IDF Israel\u2019s leading supplier of tank and artillery munitions is Elbit Systems\u2019 Land division, which comprises the formerly state-owned Israel Military Industries (IMI), acquired in 2018. IMI developed many of the IDF\u2019s modern shells and operated a dedicated factory producing ordnance for export, including NATO-standard calibres.<\/p>\n Incidents and munitions<\/p>\n The following section itemises munitions reported to have been produced and\/or supplied by Elbit Systems for\/to the IDF:<\/p>\n I. The 155mm shells which Elbit Systems has produced\/supplied are:<\/p>\n 1) M107-A3 (155): A variant of the US M107 HE shells, with enhanced firepower, according to Elbit.<\/p>\n 2) M454 S-HE (155mm) [Amy Killi9] [Unknown A10]: developed by IMI, the M454 Super High Explosive is a multipurpose airburst shell. Deploying a drogue parachute to reach the target area with a near-vertical trajectory and detonate 1.5m above ground. The shell contains 7,000 pre-formed fragmentation elements. The manufacturer claims it is five times more effective than standard HE rounds, offering logistical savings (Elbit Systems, 2026).<\/p>\n 3) M999 \u2018Barak Eitan\u2019 (155mm) Cluster Artillery Shell: Developed by IMI, the M999 disperses nine \u2018M99\u2019 submunitions, which each expel 1,200 tungsten fragments upon detonating. The US tested the M999 for its own XM1208 cluster shell programme and adopted the M99 submunitions (Peck, 2025). After objections from international investors, Elbit cancelled the M999\u2019s production.<\/p>\n II. Precise Universal Launch System (PULS) missiles, which Elbit Systems has produced\/supplied for the IDF:<\/p>\n 1) AccuLAR 122mm (Romach) and AccuLAR 160mm (Bar) rockets: Produced by Elbit Systems and unveiled in 2020 by the Artillery Corps\u2019 282nd Brigade, the 227mm unguided Ra\u2019am Eitan rocket contains 64 bomblets.<\/p>\n a) The use of guided 122mm Romach (AccuLAR) rockets for precision strikes was confirmed in Israeli reports. Within a month, around 150 Romach strikes were conducted, alongside the firing of tens of thousands of 155mm artillery shells during the deployment of the 282nd brigade from Northern Israel to Gaza. [AmyKilli14]<\/p>\n b) In April 2025, the firing of new 160mm \u2018Bar\u2019 AccuLAR rockets from the brigade\u2019s PULSs against targets in Gaza, was also reported (Jerusalem Post, 2025).<\/p>\n III. Tank shells which Elbit Systems has produced\/supplied for the IDF:<\/p>\n 1) The M329 round: The IDF used the M329 120mm Anti-Personnel Anti-Material Multi-Purpose Tracer (APAM-MP-T), which is designed to combine structural penetration with anti-personnel effects in operations such as Operation Protective Edge. [Amy Killi16] [Unknown A17<\/p>\n a) The M329, however, realises its anti-personnel effect with six submunitions, making it a cluster munition. The round is no longer listed in Elbit Systems\u2019 ammunition portfolios, possibly due to international scrutiny of cluster munitions. However, indications are that the IDF has likely drawn on existing stockpiles during the Gaza campaign (OSMP, 2024).[5]<\/a><\/p>\n b) Medical experts who reviewed photographs of fragmentation injuries at Al-Aqsa Hospital, along with shrapnel recovered by surgeons, concluded the damage was likely caused by M329 cluster shells or M339 fragmentation shells. [Amy Killi23].[6]<\/a><\/p>\n IV. Multi-Purpose Rigid (MPR) bombs, which Elbit Systems has produced\/supplied for the IDF:<\/p>\n 1) The MPR-500: Israel fields the MPR-500 \u201cenhanced blast\u201d bomb, developed by IMI and first showcased in 2012. Designed for urban warfare, it integrates aspects of bunker-busters with anti-personnel area-effect weapons.<\/p>\n a) In 2023, the use of the bomb was reported in Gaza operations (Boguslavsky, 2023). Amnesty experts identified it at the site of an April 19, 2024, strike on Rafah, alongside remnants of a JDAM kit.<\/p>\n V. Laser guidance kits Elbit Systems has produced\/supplied for the IDF:<\/p>\n 1) The \u2018Lizard\u2019 laser homing kit: The IDF also employs \u2018Lizard\u2019 laser-homing kits, produced by Elbit, for Mk80 bombs (Elbit Systems, 2022)<\/p>\n a) OSINT analysts identified Lizard\/Paveway tail fins from remnants found in Gaza. One bore the markings \u201cFOR USE ON MK82\u201d, confirming use with the 500lb bomb<\/p>\n b) (OSMP, n.d.). While open-source documentation is sparse, these kits are confirmed in IDF inventories deployed in Gaza.<\/p>\n VI. Tactical UAV drones, which Elbit Systems has produced\/supplied for the IDF:<\/p>\n 1) Hermes-450: Produced by Elbit Systems and nicknamed \u201cZik\u201d (in Hebrew), versions of this RPAS have been in operation since 1998. Described as the military\u2019s aerial workhorse, the Hermes-450 has been used extensively for reconnaissance, surveillance and strikes. Operators may relay targeting intel or conduct strikes themselves.<\/p>\n a) At the urging of industry players, the IDF officially acknowledged armed drone use over Gaza in 2022, despite accounts of use dating back two decades (Egozi, 2022; Fabian, 2022; Williams, 2023).<\/p>\n 2) Hermes-900: First deployed by the IDF in 2009, the more recently developed Hermes-900 is a MALE drone, typically used for long aerial reconnaissance missions, using its advanced ISR features. It also accommodates the munitions used on Hermes 450s.<\/p>\n VII. Loitering Munitions which Elbit Systems has produced\/supplied for the IDF:<\/p>\n 1) The SkyStriker: Developed by Elbit Systems[Amy Killi102], the SkyStriker remotely operated drone is designed for low-altitude and quiet flight; launched from land, sea, or air platforms. It integrates intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) functions with the ability to deliver pinpoint strikes by a high-speed dive.<\/p>\n a) During April 2025, SkyStrikers were used in multiple strikes on displacement sites, including tent camps in Mawasi, Khan Younis \u2014 an area the IDF had previously designated as a \u201chumanitarian zone\u201d. In one week, at least five SkyStriker strikes hit tents in Mawasi and elsewhere, killing at least 30 Palestinians, including 14 children (Kouddous and Salha, 2025).<\/p>\n b) On April 17, 2025, one struck a shelter in Mawasi, killing ten members of the Abu al-Rous family, five of them children. Similar strikes occurred in northern Gaza the same night. In Beit Lahia, a tent sheltering the Al-Atal family was hit, killing two parents with their four children, while in Jabaliya refugee camp, a strike killed seven members of the Asaliyah family as they slept. Survivors described the impact as \u201clike an earthquake\u201d and spoke of finding body parts among the debris.<\/p>\n c) Two days later, a strike near a field hospital in Mawasi killed members of the Abu al-Nida family,[Amy Killi107] including two women. On April 21, a married couple sheltering in a tent nearby were also killed. Debris from the attacks, including distinctive SkyStriker components, was documented and subsequently verified (Kouddous and Salha, 2025).<\/p>\n The Connection between Elbit UK and Elbit Systems<\/p>\n Elbit\u2019s role has attracted particular attention in Britain because of the company\u2019s UK subsidiaries. Campaigners have focused on UAV Engines Limited, an Elbit subsidiary that manufactures engines in Britain. Following the World Central Kitchen strike, activists argued that UK-manufactured components may have been incorporated into drones used in Gaza.<\/p>\n In February 2026, the Public Interest Law Centre and Campaign Against Arms Trade submitted a complaint to the Metropolitan Police seeking an investigation into whether UK-based Elbit directors could face scrutiny under legislation relating to war crimes and aiding or abetting international crimes. No criminal findings have been made, and the allegations remain contested.<\/p>\n One foundation of the claim that Elbit Systems UK is connected to Israeli military supply chains is the record of export licences held by UK- based companies linked to the Elbit group. According to analysis compiled by the Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT), several companies associated with Elbit Systems have obtained UK military export licences for goods destined for Israel (Campaign Against Arms Trade, 2025).<\/p>\n These companies include Instro Precision Ltd, which produces targeting and imaging equipment; UAV Engines Ltd, which manufactures engine components; and UAV Tactical Systems Ltd (U-TacS), a joint venture between Elbit Systems and Thales UK responsible for the Watchkeeper drone programme.[7]<\/a><\/p>\n Furthermore, the debate surrounding Elbit Systems UK also concerns the corporate relationship between the British subsidiary and its Israeli parent company. Evidence presented during court proceedings relating to protests against Elbit facilities indicated that profits generated by Elbit Systems UK ultimately flow to the parent company in Israel, which retains overall corporate control (Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, 2025).<\/p>\n A\u00a051%-held subsidiary in the U.K. (the \u201cUK Subsidiary\u201d) is considered to be a Variable Interest Entity. As Elbit Systems is the primary beneficiary and has both the power to direct its activities and absorb the majority of its losses or the right to the majority of its earnings based upon holding the\u00a051% economic interest, the UK Subsidiary is consolidated in the Company\u2019s financial statements.[8]<\/a><\/p>\n Elbit Systems UK continues to deny a connection with the supply of munitions to Israel.\u00a0\u00a0 In response to a written question by Apsana Begum MP on 18 December 2024, the Minister of State for the Department for Business and Trade, Douglas Alexander, clarified that Elbit Systems UK has not exported Thor drones to partner companies in Israel under individual export licences.[9]<\/a><\/p>\n While export licences demonstrate that companies have been authorised to export controlled goods, they do not confirm whether shipments took place or how the items were ultimately used. Investigative reporting has therefore attempted to identify documentary evidence of exports from the United Kingdom to Elbit facilities in Israel.[10]<\/a><\/p>\n An investigation published by Declassified UK reported that cargo documentation indicated shipments of defence-related components from UK- based companies to Elbit sites in Israel between 2023 and 2025 (Declassified UK, 2025). The documents reportedly show equipment being exported from Instro Precision facilities in the United Kingdom to Elbit factories in Israel.[11]<\/a><\/p>\n Palestine Action, the Right to Protest and Elbit Systems UK<\/p>\n General Overview The jury at Woolwich Crown Court was not told that this was a possibility when convicting the defendants of criminal damage, which is not ordinarily a terrorist offence, for smashing up drones and other equipment at the Elbit factory.<\/p>\n Mr Justice Johnson subsequently imposed custodial sentences ranging from 4 years and 8 months to 7 years and 8 months\u2019 imprisonment.<\/p>\n To sentence the activists under the \u2018serious property damage\u2019 clause under s1(2)(b) of the Terrorism Act 2000, the Court was required to find the \u2018serious property damage\u2019 element, as well as the requirement under s1(1)(b) that the actions were undertaken for the purpose of influencing a government or an \u2018international governmental organisation\u2019. The Court ultimately found that these requirements had been satisfied and that the offences had a terrorist connection for sentencing purposes.[13]<\/a><\/p>\n As a result, the four will have to serve their entire sentences in prison, unless a parole board approves their release after completing two-thirds of their sentences. Non-terrorist prisoners usually serve 40% of their sentence.<\/p>\n On s1(1)(b) of the TA 2000, Rajiv Menon KC and others strongly argued that influencing government was not the purpose of the action \u2013 the purpose of the action was to damage weapons and save lives. However, Judge Johnson concluded that: \u201cI accept that this was one motivating factor, but that does not mean that another purpose was not to damage property to be made available to the Israeli government and thereby influence the Israeli government.\u201d[14]<\/a><\/p>\n Arguments against sentencing under the Terrorism Act 2000 However, considering the information gathered previously in this brief, it is a fair assessment to suggest that the primary motive of the activists was indeed, and as Rajiv Menon KC had argued, to disrupt the supply\/production of equipment used directly to facilitate the IDF\u2019s offensive in Gaza.<\/p>\n In R(Ammori) v SSHD, the case assessed at the high court regarding the proscription of Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation, the court held that while, \u2018At its core, Palestine Action is an organisation that promotes its political cause through criminality and encouragement of criminality. A very small number of its actions have amounted to terrorist action within the definition in section 1(1) of the 2000 Act\u2019.[15]<\/a><\/p>\n Whilst accepting that a small number of Palestine Action\u2019s activities may fall within the statutory definition of terrorism, the Court also emphasised that criminality and terrorism are distinct concepts. This distinction supports the argument that conduct undertaken as part of a campaign of direct action should not automatically be characterised as terrorism and that the application of terrorism legislation requires careful consideration of the purpose and nature of the conduct in question.<\/p>\n Furthermore, the court went on to state that \u2018For those actions, regardless of proscription, the criminal law is available to prosecute those concerned. If those involved are convicted, they face the prospect of significant punishment, which would serve as a significant deterrent to others.[16]<\/a> This distinction is important. An element of criminality is distinct from an element of terrorism.<\/p>\n If actions undertaken by individuals associated with Palestine Action can be said to materially influence the outcome that civilian harm would occur and are undertaken with that intentionality, the TA2000 would risk overextension in sentencing such acts as terrorist acts.<\/p>\n Conclusion<\/p>\n Elbit Systems occupies a significant position within Israel\u2019s military-industrial infrastructure and supplies a substantial proportion of the weaponry and systems used by the Israel Defense Forces. As this briefing has shown, a range of munitions, drones, loitering weapons and guidance systems associated with Elbit have reportedly been deployed during military operations in Gaza. At the same time, international bodies, human rights organisations and legal experts have raised increasingly serious concerns regarding alleged violations of international humanitarian law committed during those operations, including allegations that acts amounting to genocide have occurred.<\/p>\n The evidence examined in this paper does not establish legal liability on the part of Elbit Systems. The manufacture or supply of weapons is not, in itself, unlawful, nor does it automatically give rise to responsibility for the conduct of those who use them. Any finding of criminal, civil or corporate liability would depend upon the application of the relevant legal framework to specific facts, including the nature of the assistance provided, the relationship between that assistance and alleged violations, and the extent of knowledge held by those involved.<\/p>\n Nevertheless, the scale of Elbit\u2019s role in supplying military equipment to Israel places the company at the centre of an important legal and public policy debate. Questions regarding the responsibilities of arms manufacturers operating in the context of armed conflict are likely to intensify as investigations into events in Gaza continue.<\/p>\n Similar questions arise in relation to the activities of Elbit\u2019s UK subsidiaries, where campaigners, journalists and legal advocates have sought greater scrutiny of corporate links and export activities, while the company continues to deny involvement in supplying munitions to Israel and no criminal findings have been made against it.<\/p>\n The prosecution of Palestine Action activists illustrates a related but distinct issue: the extent to which direct action targeting defence companies should be treated through the ordinary criminal law or through the framework of counter-terrorism legislation. While courts have recognised that some actions associated with Palestine Action may fall within statutory definitions of terrorism, they have also emphasised the importance of distinguishing between criminality and terrorism. The application of terrorism powers in this context therefore raises wider questions concerning proportionality, political protest and the boundaries of lawful dissent. AOAV is concerned such boundaries are being truncated.<\/p>\n Sources<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> International Court of Justice, Legal Consequences Arising from the Policies and Practices of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem (Advisory Opinion, 19 July 2024) https:\/\/www.icj-cij.org\/node\/203447<\/a>\u00a0 accessed 3 June 2026.<\/p>\n [2]<\/a> United Nations Human Rights Council, From Economy of Occupation to Economy of Genocide: Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel UN Doc A\/HRC\/60\/CRP.3 (10 June 2025) https:\/\/www.ohchr.org\/sites\/default\/files\/documents\/hrbodies\/hrcouncil\/sessions-regular\/session60\/advance-version\/a-hrc-60-crp-3.pdf<\/a>\u00a0 accessed 3 June 2026.<\/p>\n [3]<\/a> Elbit Systems Ltd, \u2018Elbit Systems Reports Third Quarter 2023 Results\u2019 (28 November 2023) https:\/\/www.elbitsystems.com\/news\/elbit-systems-reports-third-quarter-2023-results<\/a>\u00a0 accessed 3 June 2026.<\/p>\n [4]<\/a> The Marker, [Hebrew] (28 November 2023) https:\/\/www.themarker.com\/markets\/2023-11-28\/ty-article\/0000018c-15cb-dd2e-a5ae-d7cb8a8a0000<\/a>\u00a0 accessed 3 June 2026.<\/p>\n [5]<\/a> Open Source Munitions Portal, \u2018M320 APAM\u2019 (2024) https:\/\/osmp.ngo\/osmp640\/<\/a> accessed 3 June 2026.<\/p>\n [6]<\/a> McGreal, C. (2024). Israeli weapons packed with shrapnel causing devastating injuries to children in Gaza, doctors say. The Guardian. https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/world\/article\/2024\/jul\/11\/israeli-weapons-shrapnel-children-gaza-injured<\/a>\u00a0<\/p>\n [7]<\/a> Action on Armed Violence, \u2018Has Elbit Systems UK Been Involved in the Manufacture and Supply of Weapons to the Israeli Military? A Claim the Company Strongly Denies\u2019 (13 February 2026) https:\/\/aoav.org.uk\/2026\/has-elbit-systems-uk-been-involved-in-the-manufacture-and-supply-of-weapons-to-the-israeli-military-a-claim-the-company-strongly-denies\/<\/a>\u00a0 accessed 3 June 2026.<\/p>\n [8]<\/a> Elbit Systems Ltd, Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the Fiscal Year Ended 31 December 2024 (US Securities and Exchange Commission, 2025) https:\/\/www.sec.gov\/Archives\/edgar\/data\/1027664\/000162828025013971\/eslt-20241231.htm<\/a>\u00a0 accessed 3 June 2026.<\/p>\n [9]<\/a> George Allison, \u2018No Evidence of Drone Exports to Israel by UK\u2019 UK Defence Journal (19 December 2024) https:\/\/ukdefencejournal.org.uk\/no-evidence-of-drone-exports-to-israel-by-uk\/<\/a>\u00a0 accessed 3 June 2026.<\/p>\n [10]<\/a> Phil Miller, \u2018Exposed: The UK Firms Supplying Elbit Systems\u2019 Declassified UK (2025) https:\/\/www.declassifieduk.org\/exposed-the-uk-firms-supplying-elbit-systems\/<\/a>\u00a0 accessed 3 June 2026.<\/p>\n [11]<\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n [12]<\/a> Haroon Siddique, \u2018Pro-Palestine activists sentenced as terrorists over damage at Israeli arms factory in UK\u2019 The Guardian (12 June 2026) https:\/\/www.theguardian.com\/uk-news\/2026\/jun\/12\/palestine-action-activists-sentenced-terrorists-damage-elbit-systems-uk-israel<\/a> \u00a0accessed 15 June 2026<\/p>\n [13]<\/a> Filton Actionists, \u2018Press Release: Reporting Restrictions Lifted \u2013 Judge to Sentence Activists as Terrorists Despite Jury Only Convicting of Criminal Damage Without Knowledge of Terror Connection Ruling Ahead of Trial\u2019 (12 May 2026) https:\/\/filtonactionists.com\/press-release-reporting-restrictions-lifted-judge-to-sentence-activists-as-terrorists-despite-jury-only-convicting-of-criminal-damage-without-knowledge-of-terror-connection-ruling-ahead-of-tr\/<\/a>\u00a0 accessed 3 June 2026.<\/p>\n [14]<\/a> ibid.<\/p>\n [15]<\/a> R (Ammori) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2026] EWHC 292 (Admin), para 138.<\/p>\n
Questions then arise about whether Elbit Systems\u2019 munitions supply to Israel implicates the company in the alleged violations of international humanitarian law taking place in Gaza. The manufacture or supply of weapons does not, in itself, establish liability. Rather, responsibility would depend upon the applicable legal framework and the particular facts of the case. Potential responsibility may arise through concepts such as aiding and abetting, complicity, or corporate responsibility, each of which would require consideration of factors including the nature of the assistance provided, its connection to the alleged violations, and the extent of the company\u2019s knowledge regarding the use of its products.<\/p>\n
Recently, four Palestine Action activists were convicted after a retrial over a protest at an Elbit Systems\u2019 UK branch in Bristol. They were later sentenced on the basis that the offences had a terrorist connection, despite the jury not being informed that this was a possibility.[12]<\/a><\/p>\n
Per Judge Johnson, the motive which implicates the activists under the TA2000 is the contention that they intended to influence the Israeli government by damaging property that was to be made available to them.<\/p>\n