Below is a clear, legally grounded placement of Elbit Systems within the framework we have been analysing.
No accusations—only the legal position Elbit occupies when the UK is assessed under:
the Genocide Convention,
Customary International Humanitarian Law,
the ICC Act 2001,
the Arms Trade Treaties / UK Export Control Regime,
and state-responsibility doctrine.
This is the most accurate way to answer “Where is Elbit Systems in this?”.
---
1. Elbit Systems is not a neutral civilian company in this legal context
Elbit is Israel’s largest private arms supplier, providing:
drones used in targeting and strike planning,
surveillance and fire-control systems,
munitions and components,
communications and battlefield management systems,
parts integrated into aircraft and missile systems.
Under international law, a corporation with this profile is classified as a defence manufacturer that produces means and methods of warfare.
This places it directly inside the legal ecosystem governing war-crimes risk, genocide-risk, and arms-transfer law.
---
2. Under the UK’s legal framework, Elbit systems sits within the category of “potential corporate complicity”
Under the ICC Act 2001, a company can be implicated if its officers:
intentionally,
knowingly, or
with wilful blindness
assist, enable, or contribute to war crimes or genocidal acts.
The ICC Act does not grant corporations immunity.
Corporate officers may be individually liable.
Elbit therefore sits in the category of:
Corporate actor whose products materially contribute to operations that are under ICC investigation and ICJ scrutiny.
This does not prove guilt—
but places the company within the zone of potential complicity.
---
3. Under the Genocide Convention (Articles I & III), Elbit’s role triggers “duty to prevent” obligations for states like the UK
If a corporation supplies systems used in:
indiscriminate attacks,
collective punishment,
targeting civilian infrastructure,
or actions the ICJ describes as plausibly genocidal,
then states providing economic or logistical support to that corporation have a heightened duty to prevent escalation.
What this means:
The UK’s continued facilitation of Elbit’s operations (licences, tax status, police protection) engages UK state responsibility.
Elbit’s participation becomes part of the risk chain the UK must assess under law.
Thus, in legal terms, Elbit is not “separate”—
it is part of the causal pathway states must evaluate.
---
4. Under the Arms Trade Treaty and UK Export Control law, Elbit sits in the category: “high-risk end-user/producer.”
Under ATT Articles 6 & 7, the UK must deny export licences when there is:
a clear risk of war-crimes use,
risk of serious violations of IHL,
or contribution to genocide-risk conditions.
Elbit’s core products are:
drones used for strikes on densely populated civilian areas;
thermal/optical targeting systems on aircraft linked to mass-casualty bombings;
fire-control suites for artillery and precision-guided munitions.
These functions meet the ATT definition of likely involvement in serious IHL violations.
Thus, Elbit is legally positioned as:
A high-risk actor whose operations should trigger licence suspensions or refusals.
---
5. Under state-responsibility doctrine (ILC Articles 16 & 41), Elbit sits in the category of “assisted entity”.
A state violates international law if it:
provides assistance,
coordinates,
facilitates,
supports, or
shields
an entity that is committing internationally wrongful acts.
Elbit is:
a direct producer of tools used in the Gaza bombardment,
a beneficiary of UK police protection and intelligence coordination,
and a commercial partner of UK defence industries.
Thus, in doctrine, Elbit sits in the position where the UK’s support, protection, or enabling conditions may translate to state responsibility.
---
6. Under domestic UK criminal law (Terrorism Act 2000), Elbit is paradoxically treated as a protected victim
The Crown prosecutes activists who damage Elbit property as:
“terrorists,”
“threats to national security,”
or “serious organised criminals”.
This places Elbit in the bizarre legal category:
“Protected infrastructure essential to national security.”
This is the opposite of its position under international law.
This contradiction is the most important point.
---
7. The single sentence answer:
Elbit Systems is positioned, in law, as a defence corporation whose products materially contribute to a conflict that international courts have identified as carrying a plausible risk of genocide—placing it squarely in the chain of actors that the UK is legally obliged to regulate, restrict, and potentially investigate, yet which the Crown currently treats as a protected national-security asset rather than a high-risk contributor to internationally unlawful harm. 
---
---