The UK government has initiated a review of its decision to export components for the F-35 warplane to Israel and other countries involved in the global F-35 programme. This decision follows mounting pressure from human rights groups and a legal challenge that exposed the UK’s complicity in arms exports to a state accused of grave international crimes.
Last week, a pre-action letter from the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) and Al-Haq compelled the government to reconsider the inclusion of the F-35 programme in its arms export licences. This followed the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) issuance of warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, citing allegations of war crimes in Gaza, including murder and the use of starvation as a weapon.
In a previous High Court hearing, the UK government conceded that “Israel is not committed to complying with international humanitarian law,” raising serious questions about the legality of ongoing arms exports. Despite suspending 30 export licences to Israel in September, the government had exempted the F-35 programme, a global pool managed by the US that facilitates arms transfers to Israel.
GLAN and Al-Haq argue that the UK’s approach undermines its international obligations. Shawan Jabarin, General Director of Al-Haq, stated, “Every day our people are being killed by F-35s in Gaza. Refugee camps packed with displaced families, the elderly, the sick, and children are being bombed. Day after day, bombed buildings crush the heads of our young children and babies. This must stop. The UK has international obligations to stop supplying arms and parts to Israel used to commit international crimes, including genocide.”
The UK government admitted that its decision to allow exports for the F-35 programme was influenced by “the risk to the UK/US relationship,” a justification criticized as prioritizing political alliances over human lives. GLAN Director Dr. Gearóid Ó Cuinn called this rationale “a leadership complicit in genocide,” highlighting that the government’s reluctance to enforce a full arms embargo exposes its disregard for the legal and moral implications of its actions.
Dearbhla Minogue, a senior lawyer with GLAN, commented, “We welcome the fact that the government has been compelled to reconsider this F-35 ‘carve-out.’ The position they took is, in our estimation, legally untenable. We hope they will finally do the only reasonable thing – stop the transfer of any British weapons for use by Israel against Palestinians.”
Dr. Iain Overton, Executive Director of Action on Armed Violence, said, “The UK must ask itself what price it is willing to pay for its political expediency. By continuing to supply components for F-35s used in Gaza, it risks becoming complicit in acts that devastate civilian populations. Arms control is not just a matter of policy – it is a moral and legal obligation.”
The UK government’s review of the F-35 programme exports marks a pivotal moment, where the country’s commitment to international law and human rights is being scrutinised. Whether the government will act to suspend these exports or continue to prioritise political considerations remains to be seen.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate