Introduction
The UK F-35 exports to Israel has ruled that the government can legally continue exporting British-made components for US-manufactured F-35 fighter jets used by Israel, rejecting a case brought by campaigners amid growing concerns about potential war crimes in Gaza.
What Was the Case About?
Human rights organisations, including al-Haq and the Global Legal Action Network, argued that supplying F-35 parts violated international law because of their potential use in attacks on Palestinian civilians. The UK produces 15% of every F-35, and its parts are shared in a global pool that Israel can access UK F-35 exports to Israel.
However, the court ruled that the matter was outside its constitutional authority, stating that such foreign policy decisions are “acutely sensitive and political” and thus the responsibility of the executive, not the judiciary.
Government Position and Court Ruling
The government had already suspended around 30 arms export licenses to Israel last September due to the risk of use in violating international law UK F-35 exports to Israel. But it maintained that withdrawing from the F-35 programme entirely could jeopardise the UK’s defense credibility and NATO partnerships.
The High Court agreed, noting that Business Minister Jonathan Reynolds faced a “blunt choice”—either accept the carve-out or leave the F-35 program entirely. The judges concluded: “That choice falls within the powers of the executive accountable to Parliament, not the courts.”
Human Rights Groups React
The ruling was met with strong backlash from Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and Oxfam, all of whom provided evidence in the case. Amnesty UK’s CEO Sacha Deshmukh said the decision “does not absolve the UK government of its responsibilities under international law.”
HRW’s UK Director Yasmine Ahmed added: “Judicial deference to the executive in this case has left Palestinians in Gaza without access to the protections of international law.”
Humanitarian Concerns in Gaza
Rights organisations point to mass civilian casualties, the destruction of medical infrastructure, and forced displacement in Gaza as evidence that Israeli military actions may constitute war crimes. The court acknowledged the risk but did not find grounds to override executive authority.
According to Gaza health authorities, over 56,000 people have been killed in Israeli operations since Hamas’s October 7 attack. British-made F-35 components have allegedly played a role in the aerial bombardment of Gaza, sparking growing public and legal scrutiny.
Broader Legal and Diplomatic Implications
The ruling may set a precedent limiting judicial oversight in future arms export disputes. It also highlights the legal grey zone between international obligations and national sovereignty in foreign policy decisions.
The government, for its part, said it would continue to “keep all defence export licenses under review” and stressed that the court’s ruling confirmed its decision-making was lawful and thorough.
Potential Next Steps
Lawyers for the human rights groups are now exploring options for appeal. Meanwhile, pressure continues to mount on the UK and other Western governments to align military export policies with international human rights standards.
Related Reads:
- Amnesty’s Call for Arms Trade Transparency
- Gaza Humanitarian Crisis Escalates
- Global Legal Tensions Over Israel-Gaza War
External Sources:
- BBC: UK Court Backs F-35 Export to Israel
- Amnesty UK Statement on Court Ruling
- HRW: UK Court Fails Palestinians in Gaza
Conclusion
The High Court’s ruling has far-reaching implications, not just for UK arms policy but for global accountability in conflicts. As human rights groups continue to push for legal and political reforms, the ethical debate over defense exports to war zones like Gaza is far from over.
