UK court rules F-35 parts sale to 'Israel' legal
4 Min Read
A British court ruled that the UK government’s export of F-35 jet parts to "Israel" is lawful, despite warnings they could be used in Gaza in violation of international humanitarian law.
-
An Israeli F-35 fighter jet at the Ovda air force base, north of Eilat, in October 2021. (AP)
London’s high court ruled that Britain’s decision to permit the export of F-35 fighter jet components to "Israel" was "lawful", even though the government acknowledged these parts could potentially be used in ways that violate international humanitarian law in Gaza.
The ruling on Monday marked the end of a 20-month legal battle aimed at halting all UK arms sales to "Israel", including the supply of F-35 components to a global spare parts pool accessible to the occupation, after the case was brought by the Global Legal Action Network and the human rights organization Al-Haq, alongside Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Oxfam.
In a detailed 72-page ruling issued on Monday, Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn emphasized that the courts should refrain from interfering in a politically sensitive matter that they believed was more appropriately handled by ministers and Parliament.
The two judges clarified that the case centered on a narrower legal question rather than the broader implications of excluding F-35 components from a UK arms export ban implemented the previous September.
Court cannot compel the UK to withdraw from agreement
The judges further explained that the core question was whether the court could legally compel the UK to withdraw from a crucial multilateral defense agreement, considered essential by ministers for both national security and global stability, because British-made components might eventually reach "Israel" and could potentially be used in ways that breach international humanitarian law in Gaza.
“Under our constitution, that acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts, the judges added.
Government ministers had contended that prohibiting the export of these components would disrupt the entire F-35 program, potentially undermining NATO and European security.
The judges seemed to acknowledge the UK government's position that imposing conditions on sales to Lockheed Martin, preventing the parts from being transferred to "Israel", was not feasible.
Lockheed Martin had explicitly informed the Ministry of Defense that such restrictions would be unworkable, though the MoD noted in court filings that additional logistical measures would be required to isolate components intended for "Israel", implying it had not actively pursued this option.
However, the court agreed with the government's position that the potential benefits to broader peace and security needed to be weighed against the evident risk that these arms could contribute to severe breaches of international humanitarian and human rights law.
F-35 ban case exposes the British court system
The ruling, while favorable to the government, has nonetheless cast doubt on the effectiveness of the UK's arms export controls and the arguments ministers presented to Parliament defending F-35 component sales.
While UK ministers have consistently argued in Parliament that determining genocide falls to courts rather than lawmakers, government lawyers disclosed in July 2024 that officials had assessed no serious genocide risk in Gaza, additionally stating they found no evidence of deliberate targeting of women and children.
The case showed the UK government's threshold for proving IOF violations of international humanitarian law was exceptionally high: by September 2024, after "Israel's" strikes had reportedly killed 40,000 Palestinians, officials had reviewed only 413 incidents, finding just one potential breach: the April 2024 attack on World Central Kitchen aid workers.
The government's review found no potential violations in incidents involving only Palestinian casualties, outsourcing part of the analysis to the Centre for Information Resilience, while Al-Haq contended ministers should have examined broader patterns of attacks rather than individual justifications when assessing proportionality.
Government lawyers argued that insufficient information about specific incidents prevented definitive conclusions about potential international humanitarian law violations, even though UK law prohibits arms exports when there is a clear risk the weapons could facilitate serious breaches of these laws.
