London is facing a High Court case over allegations that its continued export of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel breaches domestic and international laws.
The New Arab Staff
12 May, 2025
The government's legal argument centres on the claim that any disruption to the F-35 supply chain would damage NATO's security [Getty]
The UK government is set to argue in a landmark High Court case that preserving Britain's role in the global F-35 fighter jet programme takes precedence over compliance with domestic arms export laws or any legal duty to prevent genocide in Gaza.
The four-day hearing, beginning on Tuesday, will test whether ministers acted unlawfully by continuing to supply parts for F-35 jets that may be used by Israel in its ongoing assault on Gaza.
The case has been brought by Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq, and is backed by leading UK-based groups including Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam, and the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN).
The government's legal argument centres on the claim that any disruption to the F-35 supply chain would damage NATO's security, the Guardian reported on Monday.
Britain supplies around 15 percent of the jet's value, including ejector seats, rear fuselage parts, targeting lasers, and other components primarily through BAE Systems. It is the second-largest contributor to the F-35 programme after the United States.
Government lawyers acknowledge that UK arms export laws prohibit supplying equipment where there is a clear risk of it being used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law.
However, they argue that parts are supplied to a global stockpile, not "directly" to Israel, and that halting the supply could harm UK credibility within NATO and damage relations with the US.
In submissions to the court, Defence Secretary John Healey claimed that suspending exports would have a "profound impact on international peace and security", and that such a move could undermine US confidence in the UK at a "critical juncture in our collective history.” He further warned that adversaries could “take advantage of any perceived weakness".
GLAN lawyer Charlotte Andrews-Briscoe, representing Al-Haq, said the UK's continued support for the F-35 programme has enabled Israeli attacks on Gaza with "catastrophic and continuing" consequences.
She cited more than 15,000 air missions by Israeli F-35s since 7 October, including the 18 March strikes that killed over 400 Palestinians in a single day, among them 183 children and 94 women.
RelatedOliver Mizzi
"These warplanes cause deaths and life-changing injuries," Andrews-Briscoe told the Guardian. "They also support ground troops that are intentionally starving an already decimated population."
She warned that the government's approach risks gutting the legal meaning of genocide prevention. "They’ve effectively said the Geneva Conventions have no domestic application unless an international court conclusively rules on genocide - something they admit could take years. If this argument is accepted, it would strip the duty to prevent genocide of any practical relevance."
Al-Haq's barrister Jennine Walker also criticised the government's reliance on national security arguments, saying: "Of course it is possible to stop British-made F-35 parts from reaching Israel without collapsing the entire programme. What really threatens international peace and security are these flagrant violations of international law."
Speaking to The New Arab, Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT)’s media coordinator Emily Apple said: "The government's position in this case is untenable, illegal and immoral. In continuing to supply F-35 spare parts through the global stockpile, it is breaking both domestic and international law.
"It is not disputed that there is a clear risk that Israel is using F-35s to commit war crimes, and that it is not committed to upholding international law. Yet this government is making the outrageous assertion that stopping the supply of F-35 parts would put global security at risk. However, ignoring the Genocide Convention, and ignoring domestic and international law, is the greatest threat to global peace and security we could possibly face."
Apple added that it was "a moral and legal outrage that this legal case is necessary", and accused the UK government of putting arms industry profits above Palestinian lives. "We hope this court case will finally end the UK’s complicity in Israel’s horrific war crimes," she said.
RelatedAnam Alam
The case comes amid renewed attention to the UK’s military support for Israel. In September 2023, the government suspended 30 arms export licences just 90 minutes before a scheduled court hearing, but notably excluded F-35 parts from the suspension, arguing they were too critical to NATO to restrict.
Human Rights Watch UK director Yasmine Ahmed said the government had failed its responsibilities under the Genocide Convention.
"By 2 September, ministers knew over 41,000 Palestinians had been killed, including 15,000 children, and that 1.9 million people had been forcibly displaced. Yet they still maintained the supply of F-35 parts without even considering the risk of genocide," she said.
No comments:
Post a Comment