United Kingdom faces legal and ethical scrutiny over F-35 components supplied to Israel
By zoeysky // 2025-07-03
Copy
 
  • The British government is under scrutiny for continuing to supply F-35 fighter jet components to Israel, despite suspending other arms exports due to concerns over violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) in Gaza. Officials argue blocking F-35 parts would disrupt the global supply chain, but critics say this exemption may still contribute to civilian harm.
  • Lawmakers, including Sarah Champion, question whether supplying F-35 parts violates international treaties (Arms Trade Treaty, Geneva Conventions) if Israel uses them unlawfully. The U.K. sends parts indirectly via a U.S.-led program, making it difficult to stop without international agreement.
  • Hundreds of aid workers, including British nationals, have been killed in Gaza, with some attacks possibly involving foreign-supplied weapons. The killing of seven World Central Kitchen workers in 2024 intensified scrutiny over whether U.K.-supplied components are used in unlawful strikes.
  • Al-Haq, a Palestinian rights group, is suing the U.K., claiming the F-35 exemption breaches international law. The government defends the policy, citing security concerns and NATO alliance commitments.
  • MPs demand answers on why military exports to Israel continued after suspensions. If the government fails to justify its stance, pressure may grow for a parliamentary inquiry or judicial review.
The British government is under growing pressure to justify its continued export of British-made F-35 fighter jet components to Israel. At the same time, legal experts and lawmakers question whether these shipments violate international law, particularly as evidence mounts that Israeli forces may be using foreign-supplied weapons in attacks that harm civilians and aid workers. At the heart of the controversy is a September 2024 decision by the newly elected Labour government to suspend around 30 arms export licenses to Israel after concluding there was a "clear risk" that British weapons could be used in serious breaches of international humanitarian law (IHL) in Gaza. However, the government made an exception for F-35 parts, arguing that blocking them would disrupt the global F-35 program and threaten international security. Now, senior officials and human rights groups are demanding answers – raising concerns that U.K.-made components could still be contributing to violations.

The legal dilemma: Can the U.K. keep supplying F-35 parts?

Member of Parliament (MP) Sarah Champion, who chairs the House of Commons' International Development Committee, has led the charge in challenging the government's stance. In a letter to Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, she questioned whether exempting F-35 exports aligns with the U.K.'s obligations under key international treaties including the Arms Trade Treaty, the Genocide Convention and the Geneva Conventions. Champion's concerns stem from the fact that while the U.K. suspended direct arms sales, it continues to allow F-35 components to be sent to Israel indirectly through a global supply pool managed by the U.S.-led F-35 program. Court documents reveal that British officials explored ways to block these shipments but concluded it was impossible without unanimous agreement from all partner nations – a major hurdle given the U.S.'s dominant role in the program. (Related: U.K. to ban Palestine Action as terror group after RAF break-in.) But Champion, the MP for Rotterham, argues that the U.K. cannot simply "balance" security concerns against the risk of weapons being used unlawfully. Under the Arms Trade Treaty, if there is an "overriding risk" that arms will facilitate war crimes, exports must be stopped, with no exceptions. She has demanded that the government clarify:
  • Whether it acknowledges that Israel's actions in Gaza, including blocking aid and mistreating detainees, amount to serious IHL violations.
  • What legal authority justifies the F-35 exemption when there is a "clear risk" that these parts could be used in unlawful attacks.
  • Whether the U.K.’s continued exports could be seen as aiding and abetting potential war crimes.

Aid workers at risk: Are British weapons being used against them?

One of the most alarming concerns is whether U.K.-supplied arms are being used in strikes that kill or injure humanitarian workers, which is a violation of international law. Since the start of Israel's military campaign in Gaza, hundreds of aid workers have been killed, including British nationals. The United Nations (UN) and multiple NGOs have accused Israel of repeatedly attacking clearly marked humanitarian convoys and shelters. Champion's letter highlights that the U.K. could be complicit under international law if British-made F-35 components are involved in such strikes. This fear is not unfounded. In March 2024, an Israeli airstrike killed seven World Central Kitchen aid workers, an attack that drew global condemnation. While the U.K. has not confirmed whether British-supplied weapons were used in that specific incident, the broader pattern of attacks on aid operations has intensified scrutiny.

Legal challenges and government pushback

The U.K.'s F-35 exemption is already facing a High Court challenge from Al-Haq, a Palestinian human rights group. The organization argues that the government's decision is unlawful because it ignores Britain's obligations under the Geneva Conventions and other treaties. During a hearing in May of this year, Al-Haq's lawyers stressed that the case is not about judging Israel's overall conduct in Gaza but whether U.K. ministers misapplied the law when they allowed F-35 exports to continue. The government, however, insists the exemption was necessary to preserve international security and maintain trust with NATO allies. Lawyers defending the policy claim ministers acted within their legal rights, arguing that the broader risks of disrupting the F-35 program justified the decision.

Growing pressure for transparency

Beyond legal battles, MPs are demanding more transparency. Liam Byrne, chair of the Business and Trade Committee, has repeatedly pressed the Foreign Office to explain why $169 million worth of military equipment was approved for export to Israel in the three months following the September 2024 suspensions. Byrne has called for ministers to testify before his committee before Parliament's summer recess, signaling that the issue is far from resolved. Meanwhile, the controversy comes at an awkward time for the British government, which has recently announced plans to purchase 12 new F-35 jets, raising further questions about its commitment to arms control while simultaneously facing allegations of enabling violations in Gaza. Champion has given the government until July 11 to respond to her questions. If the answers are unsatisfactory, pressure could mount for a full parliamentary inquiry or even a judicial review ruling against the government. For now, the U.K. remains in a precarious position: caught between its arms trade interests, legal obligations and the moral implications of supplying weapons to a conflict with such devastating humanitarian consequences. Watch the full video below of "Brighteon Broadcast News" with the Health Ranger Mike Adams about why the illusion of peace in the Middle East won't last long. This video is from the Health Ranger Report channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

Israel inks deal to get 25 additional F-35 fighter jets from U.S. paid for by American taxpayers. Dutch court bans sending F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel as they may be used to carry out genocide and crimes against humanity. Global NGOs urge immediate halt to F-35 fighter jet exports to Israel over illegal use in Gaza and West Bank. Sources include: MiddleEastEye.net Committees.Parliament.uk Reuters.com Brighteon.com
Copy