As the war in Gaza continues into its 16th month, calls to end arms transfers to Israel—including the supply of F-35 fighter jets—have grown louder. A coalition of organisations from nations involved in the global F-35 programme has urged their governments to immediately halt all direct and indirect military transfers to Israel, highlighting the overwhelming evidence of serious violations of international law facilitated by these jets.
The Case Against F-35 Sales to Israel
Since October 2023, Israel has engaged in an unprecedented military offensive in Gaza, leading to massive civilian casualties and destruction. To date, over 46,000 Palestinians have been killed, with thousands more presumed dead under the rubble. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has already issued provisional measures warning Israel to prevent acts of genocide, while leading human rights organisations, including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, have concluded that Israel’s actions amount to crimes against humanity and possible genocide.
Despite these damning findings, F-35 fighter jets, produced by Lockheed Martin in collaboration with the US and several partner nations—including the UK, Canada, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway—continue to be used in Israeli military operations. The UK, as a ‘Tier 1’ partner in the programme, is deeply implicated, with British firms producing an estimated 15% of every F-35 jet, including key components used in attacks on Gaza and the occupied West Bank.
Legal and Ethical Responsibilities of F-35 Partner Nations
Under the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), all F-35 partner states—except for the US, which remains a signatory—are legally obligated to prevent the transfer of arms if there is an overriding risk of their use in violations of international humanitarian law. The ICJ has repeatedly reaffirmed that states must not aid or assist in unlawful occupations or human rights violations, yet governments have failed to act on these responsibilities.
Some partner nations, such as Canada, Denmark, and the Netherlands, have introduced partial restrictions on arms sales to Israel. However, loopholes and selective application of arms export controls have allowed the continued flow of F-35 components to Israel. The UK government, for instance, acknowledged in September 2024 that it could not deny the risk of serious breaches of international humanitarian law in Gaza due to F-35 usage. Yet, instead of halting supplies, it has continued to permit the indirect transfer of F-35 components to Israel under pre-existing arms licences.
The Impact of F-35s on Gaza
The F-35 programme has played a critical role in Israel’s military operations in Gaza. These jets have been used to drop 2,000 lb bombs—highly destructive explosives with a lethal radius extending up to 365 metres, capable of obliterating entire city blocks. The United Nations has identified these weapons in “emblematic” cases of indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks on Gaza, causing mass civilian casualties. In July 2024, an F-35 was responsible for bombing a ‘safe zone’ in Khan Younis, killing 90 Palestinians in a single strike.
Legal Challenges to the F-35 Programme
Across multiple jurisdictions, legal actions are being pursued to challenge the ongoing arms transfers to Israel. In the UK, Al-Haq and the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) have filed for judicial review against the UK government’s decision to exempt F-35 components from its arms suspension to Israel. In the Netherlands, the Hague Court of Appeal ordered the Dutch government to block the export of F-35 parts to Israel, a ruling upheld by the Dutch Supreme Court’s advocate general. Similar legal efforts are underway in Canada, Denmark, and Australia, seeking to enforce international and domestic arms control laws.
The ongoing transfer of F-35 components to Israel is a glaring example of the failure of international arms control mechanisms. The refusal of partner nations to halt these supplies not only enables continued violations of international law but also undermines their own commitments to human rights and conflict prevention.
Dr Iain Overton of Action on Armed Violence said of the call to action: “The continued supply of F-35 components to Israel despite the overwhelming evidence of their role in civilian harm underscores a stark failure of international arms control – one that makes F-35 partner nations complicit in potential war crimes.”
The coalition of civil society organisations is calling on all F-35 partners to immediately suspend arms transfers to Israel, in compliance with international legal obligations. Without decisive action, these nations risk complicity in war crimes and the erosion of the very legal frameworks designed to prevent atrocities in armed conflict.
Fact Sheet (produced and reposted here with permission from CAAT)
Legal Contexts
All F-35 partners have additional legislation reinforcing their international obligations at either national or European level.
- Australia’s export control regime is regulated by the Defence Export Control Act 2012, with regard to mandatory criteria found in Defence Export Control Regulations 2013 regulation 8 (and complementary Customs Regulations). This includes consideration of the risk that the goods being licensed, “may be used to commit or facilitate serious abuses of human rights” or “may go to or become available to a country where it may be used in a way contrary to Australia’s international obligations or commitments” amongst a number of other relevant criteria.
- Arms export controls in Canada are regulated at the national level under the Export and Import Permits Act (EIPA). Section 7.3(1) states that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is required to review all permits and determine whether the equipment specified could be used to “commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law”, among other criteria. Under Section 7.4, if there is a substantial risk that any transfers would lead to these negative consequences, and such risks cannot be mitigated, the export must be denied.
- Partners in the EU, namely Denmark, Italy, and the Netherlands are regulated by the EU Common Position on Arms Export Controls, including Criterion 2 c), which states that member States shall: “deny an export licence if there is a clear risk that the military technology or equipment to be exported might be used in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law.”
- Norway: Norwegian law asserts that the sale of weapons to countries in wars that violate the rules of jus ad bellum is prohibited.
- The UK is subject to the Strategic Export Licensing Criteria, including Criterion 2 c): “Having assessed the recipient country’s attitude towards relevant principles established by instruments of international humanitarian law, the Government will: c) Not grant a licence if it determines there is a clear risk that the items might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law.”
- The US: Arms transfers to the Israeli government are contrary to US law, which for example, prohibits the transfer of military aid to governments that restrict the delivery of US humanitarian assistance.
Legal Cases: F-35 programme partner countries
Australia
- In Australia a group of Palestinian human rights organisations, Al Haq, Al Mezan Center for Human Rights and the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, represented by the Australian Centre for International Justice, filed for preliminary discovery of all export permits issued since 7 October to Israel in the Federal Court. The case was discontinued last year, on account that no permits were issued other than for Australia’s own capability.
- However for reasons related to broader issues of transparency, from April to June 2024, the groups engaged in legal submissions and arguments requesting the Defence Minister revoke all current or extant export permits that may go to or become available to Israel and revoke any permits issued to companies that operate on a licence free basis to the US, due to existing treaties.
- As a result of that application, the Government announced in June it was undertaking a review of 66 current or extant permits to Israel. In November it was revealed that Australia had ‘lapsed’ or ‘amended’ 16 export licences to Israel with the review to conclude in December. The Government asserted that the “very high number of civilian deaths” imposed a tougher test on the granting of permits. The groups are concerned that no transparency exists in relation to this review, including whether F-35 parts were in consideration, and whether the reassessments have been done properly according to law, and remain seized of that matter.
Canada
- In January of 2024, Canada suspended the issuance of new export permits for the transfer of military goods to Israel. Later, in September 2024, Canada announced it had suspended approximately 30 active export permits to transfer military materiel to Israel. However, all other previously-approved arms transfers to Israel have continued unabated, including a licence for the direct export of ‘Parts and components of Weapons Bay Door of the F-35 Program’. Furthermore, all transfers of F-35 components to Israel through the US are exempt from Canada’s individual export permit requirements and therefore would also continue to be transferred. In March 2024, Canadian Lawyers for International Human Rights (CLAIHR) and Al-Haq, together with four individuals, filed an application for Judicial Review in Canada. The applicants seek, among other things, to halt the transfer, whether direct or indirect, of Canadian-made F-35 components to Israel.
Denmark
- In Denmark a number of organisations have taken a case against the Danish Government, including Amnesty International Denmark, Oxfam Denmark, MS Action Aid Denmark, and Al-Haq. In March, the Danish government announced it was implementing “a very restrictive approach” to arms exports to Israel. However it transpired that these restrictions apply to new export licences only. Existing licences, including those covering exports related to F-35s, remain in place.
Italy
- The Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni said in October 2024 that the Italian Government suspended the issuing of all new licences for the export of military materials to Israel from the start of the Israeli operation in the Gaza Strip. However, export licences issued before 7th October are being honoured and have been delivered against during the war.
The Netherlands
- In February 2024 litigation in the Netherlands by Oxfam Novib, Vredesbeweging PAX Nederland and The Rights Forum resulted in the Court ordering the Dutch Government to block the export of F-35 parts from the Netherlands to Israel. The court found that there is a clear risk that Israel’s F-35 fighter jets might be used in the commission of serious violations of international humanitarian law.
- In November 2024 the Dutch Supreme Court of the Netherlands was advised by its advocate general to uphold the ruling by the Hague Court of Appeal ordering the Dutch Government to block the export of F-35 parts from the Netherlands to Israel.
UK
- In the UK Al-Haq and Global Legal Action Network are taking the UK government to the High Court in a Judicial Review over continued weapons exports to Israel, despite the ongoing violations of international law. The UK Government’s decision on 2 September to suspend 30 arms licences to Israel, excluded components for the global F-35 programme and was taken a day before a hearing was due in the High Court.
US
- Palestinian families supported by DAWN filed a federal lawsuit in December 2024 under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenging the State Department’s arbitrary failure to implement the Leahy Law prohibiting US assistance to abusive Israeli security forces.
- In November 2023 Palestinian human rights organizations, together with Palestinians in Gaza and the US, filed a lawsuit in US federal court against former President Biden, Secretary of State Blinken, and Secretary of Defense Austin for the US officials’ failure to prevent and complicity in the Israeli government’s unfolding genocide against them. The court found that Israel’s assault and siege on the Palestinian people in Gaza plausibly constitutes genocide and “implor[ed]” the Biden administration to examine its “unflagging support” for Israel. Notwithstanding these findings, the court denied the preliminary injunction motion and granted the government’s motion to dismiss the case on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction over the administration’s conduct of foreign relations.
Legal cases elsewhere
Germany
- ECCHR has filed several requests for provisional measures against German exports of weapons of war and armaments to Israel, concerning weapons and armaments used in Gaza. Urgent requests have been submitted to administrative courts in Berlin and Frankfurt am Main on behalf of up to five Palestinian plaintiffs, all of whom live in Gaza and have already lost one or more family members as a result of the conduct of the Israeli military. The lawsuits are supported by the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) and the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights from Gaza, as well as the Palestinian human rights organization Al Haq from Ramallah in the West Bank.
- In April 2024 lawyers in Berlin filed an urgent application against the German government to stop the approval of war weapons exports to Israel. The urgent appeal was filed on behalf of Palestinians in Gaza who are demanding an immediate halt to the supply of weapons to Israel. The case is supported by the European Legal Support Center (ELSC), Palestine Institute for Public Diplomacy (PIPD), Law for Palestine under the Justice and Accountability for Palestine Initiative, and Forensis.
Belgium
- A group of Belgian NGOs filed a criminal complaint against the Israeli shipping company ZIM for violating Belgium’s arms trade decree in May 2024. The NGOs filing the complaint include 11.11.11, Association Belgo-Palestinienne, Al-Haq Europe, Broederlijk Delen, De-Colonizer, Vrede vzw, Oxfam and Vredesactie.
France
- In a decision handed down on 18 June 2024 the Paris Court of Appeal overturned the decision taken by the Bobigny court on 14 June, which had banned the entry of Israeli delegations and Israeli arms subsidiaries into the EUROSATORY arms fair. Al-Haq and its partner organisations Action sécurité éthique républicaines (ASER), Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS) had filed an interim injunction against COGES, the organiser of the EUROSATORY arms fair, to take effective measures to prevent Israeli arms companies and their subsidiaries from selling their technologies in France.
- In October 2024 Al-Haq and partners filed a legal notice calling on SOGENA, Organiser of EURONAVAL 2024, to take all measures to prevent weapon sales likely to be used in crimes in the OPT and Lebanon. The notice was filed on behalf of the organisations Al-Haq, EuroPalestine, UJFP, Stop Fueling War and Aser, and the collectives Stop Arming Israel France, Urgence Palestine, Les Comités d’Etudiants en Soutien à la Palestine de Paris.
- In April 2024 11 NGOs including Amnesty International France, ASER and Attac filed a court case to force France to halt arms deliveries to Israel.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate