The companies represented at Farnborough
Britain faces renewed international scrutiny after granting three of Israel’s largest defence manufacturers permission to showcase military technology at the prestigious Farnborough International Airshow. This decision occurs while serious accusations regarding war crimes and genocide continue against the Israeli military in Gaza, creating a stark contrast between diplomatic rhetoric and commercial reality.
The exhibition featured prominent state-owned and private entities central to Israel’s armed forces. Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), a state-owned manufacturer, was present with its Heron family of surveillance drones. IAI chief executive Boaz Levy has previously characterised the role of these specific drones in the Gaza campaign as pivotal to military operations.
Elbit Systems, identified as Israel’s largest privately owned arms manufacturer, also maintained a significant stand at the event. The firm promotes the Hermes family of military drones alongside various surveillance and targeting systems. During the airshow, footage appearing to show a Hermes drone flying over a coastline was reportedly displayed on a large screen at their exhibit, while air-to-ground weapon systems were actively promoted.
Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, another state-owned entity specialising in missile and air-defence technology including the Spike missile family, kept its presence despite mounting demands from campaigners for such firms to be excluded from British defence events. The simultaneous attendance of these three major players has immediately raised questions about whether the UK government’s public criticism of Israel’s conduct is compatible with providing influential commercial platforms to firms closely connected to the Israeli armed forces.
The British aid workers killed in Gaza
The controversy surrounding the airshow carries particular sensitivity within Britain due to the tragic loss of three British military veterans. On 1 April 2024, seven World Central Kitchen workers were killed by Israeli strikes in Gaza, among whom were John Chapman, James Kirby and James “Jim” Henderson.
These victims were travelling as part of a clearly identified humanitarian convoy after delivering food aid when their vehicles were repeatedly struck. Reporting from Farnborough linked the drone reportedly used during the operation to Elbit’s Hermes family of military drones. The Israeli military acknowledged responsibility for the strikes, described the incident as a grave error and dismissed two officers following an internal investigation.
Campaigners and relatives of the victims have continued to demand greater accountability, arguing that describing the attack as a mistake does not resolve questions about how a marked humanitarian convoy was struck multiple times. For critics, the presence of Elbit at a high-profile British airshow creates the appearance that a company whose technology is connected to a deadly incident involving British citizens can continue conducting business and promoting military systems in Britain without meaningful consequences.
Journalists reportedly confronted by security
Independent journalists attending Farnborough reported that representatives from the Israeli companies refused to answer questions about their equipment and its use in Gaza. According to Declassified UK, staff connected to IAI threatened to report journalists to police after they attempted to question the company about the Heron drone and its role in Israeli operations.
Tensions escalated at the Elbit Systems stand, where reporters asking about the deaths of the British aid workers were allegedly told they were misinformed and ordered to walk away. Security staff then reportedly moved the journalists away from the exhibit. Similar accusations were levelled against Rafael security personnel, who were accused of preventing journalists from entering the company’s area and filming reporters from inside its facility.
While companies are entitled to refuse interviews, these confrontations have intensified criticism that arms manufacturers are eager to promote their systems while avoiding public examination of how those systems have been used. The behaviour suggests a deliberate effort to shield operational details from scrutiny during a high-visibility event.
Britain’s conflicting message
The British government has repeatedly called for civilian protection, humanitarian access and compliance with international law in Gaza. However, critics argue that these statements lose credibility when companies supplying Israel’s military remain welcome at major British trade events. The Farnborough International Airshow is not merely a public aviation display; it is an important global marketplace where governments, military officials and defence contractors negotiate partnerships, promote products and build commercial relationships.
Giving arms manufacturers access to such an event offers more than visibility; it can provide networking opportunities, institutional legitimacy and potential contracts. Campaign Against Arms Trade said companies such as Elbit, Rafael and IAI should not be hosted in Britain while Palestinians continue to suffer the consequences of Israel’s military campaign. The organisation accused the arms industry of profiting from destruction and civilian suffering.
This dynamic highlights a fundamental disconnect between political condemnation and economic engagement. Allowing the companies to attend does not prove that Britain endorses every Israeli military action, yet it sends a message that commercial relationships remain largely untouched despite the government’s stated concern about Gaza.
What is confirmed and what remains disputed
It is confirmed that Elbit Systems, IAI and Rafael were present at Farnborough and promoted military technology. It is also confirmed that these companies supply major systems used by the Israeli military. However, responsibility for individual attacks must be assessed using evidence relating to each incident.
A company manufacturing a platform or weapon does not itself decide when or how the military deploys it. Critics respond that arms companies cannot separate their marketing from the battlefield performance used to promote their products, particularly when rising demand and revenue are linked to active wars.
The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute reported that the arms revenues of Elbit, Rafael and IAI reached unprecedented levels following increased demand associated with the Gaza war. The deeper issue is whether countries should continue treating weapons exhibitions as ordinary commercial events when the products displayed are connected to conflicts involving enormous civilian harm.
Britain cannot directly control every decision made by Israel’s military, but it can decide which companies receive access to government-supported exhibitions, officials, buyers and commercial opportunities on British soil.
Why the exhibition matters
The debate is therefore no longer only about drones or missiles; it is about whether political condemnation has any value when business continues as usual.
Britain must decide whether its concern for international law is a genuine policy position or simply language used while the doors of its arms market remain open to firms like Elbit Systems, IAI and Rafael. The presence of these manufacturers at Farnborough serves as a tangible indicator of how the UK balances its diplomatic stance with its economic interests in the global defence sector.
As the airshow concludes, the focus remains on whether the United Kingdom can reconcile its public advocacy for humanitarian principles with the continued promotion of weaponry linked to ongoing conflict.