Activists challenging for a judicial review of Britain’s arms trade dismissed government assurances yesterday, arguing that international humanitarian law is still being broken.

Campaign Against Arms Trade (Caat) brushed off Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) promises that arms licences to Israel if would be revoked if conflict erupted.

The group asked for the review over the government’s refusal to suspend sales of military equipment to the Israeli army during the latest Gaza attacks.

A BIS spokesman told the Star yesterday that “in the event of a resumption of significant hostilities, the government would suspend 12 licences for military components as a precautionary step.”

But Caat spokesman Andrew Smith replied this was merely a repetition of pledges made during the summer — something he labelled “the government’s extremely weak line.”

On August 12 a review of licensed exports to Israel ruled that if the ceasefire between Hamas and IDF were to be broken arms deals with Tel Aviv would have to be embargoed.

When airstrikes resumed on August 19 however the licences already in place remained intact.

“The UK’s licensing criteria is very clear,” said Mr Smith, “It says licences should be revoked if there is a ‘clear risk’ that equipment ‘might’ be used in violation of international humanitarian law.

“Israel’s actions were condemned by the UN. By any reasonable interpretation this should prohibit all future arms sales to Israel.”

BIS insisted that Britain “maintains a rigorous and transparent arms export control system,” but again campaigners called foul.

“The UK’s position is effectively that more Palestinians will have to die before it does anything to limit arms sales to Israel,” retorted Mr Smith.

Solicitor Rosa Curling — representing Caat with law firm Leigh Day — said: “The decision by BIS not to suspend or revoke the 12 existing licences is unlawful.”

“The review that was conducted by the department was flawed as it envisaged considering whether weapons ‘have been’ used at the point at which ‘significant hostilities’ resume.”

“This is too late.”

Campaigners now await to know whether the judicial review will be accepted by High Court.

Regarding the review and its outcomes, BIS refused to comment as “it would not be appropriate” given the “ongoing legal process.”