Switch off the editor’s digest free of charge
Roula Khalaf, editor of the FT, selects her favorite stories in this weekly newsletter.
The British Supreme Court has decided that the government’s decision to continue to make F-35 fighter flight parts available through a global pool of components is legal despite a more comprehensive ban on weapon sales for the state of Netanyahu in Gaza.
Activists of the Palestinian Human Rights Organization, Al-Haq, had initiated legal steps against the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Trading on British care with critical parts for the combat aircraft.
Great Britain does not sell F-35 components directly IsraelHowever, it continued to deliver a global pool of parts to which Israel has access. Great Britain has been challenged in court for national security needs and that of its allies in the F-35 program because they may be used to violate international humanitarian law.
On Monday, the court decided that the “acute sensitive and political topic” was “a matter for the executive, which is democratic and ultimately to the voters, not for the courts”.
Last September, the government of Sir Keir Starrer suspended some export licenses to Israel for weapons that were used in military operations in Gaza after a review by the British government found possible violations of international humanitarian law by Israel. However, the decision included a special carve-out for the F-35 program.
“We reject all existing reasons for the appendix of the applicant for the decision in September,” added Lord Justice men and Mrs. Justice Steyn.
The decision means that the sale of the components from Great Britain on the global parts pool for the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Fighter Jet will continue. Great Britain is one of eight partnerships that take part in the F-35 program, including the USA, Israel, Italy, Canada, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands.
The relationship between the British government to Israel has been increasingly burdened in recent months because the Netanyahu government restricted the deliveries in Gaza and tried the UN to pages.
Starrer described the situation in the Gaza as “unbearable” and called for the immediate resumption of aid flows to avert hunger and hunger. This month, the United Kingdom sanctioned the ultra-nationalist finance minister of Israel, Bezhalel Smotrich and the National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir for “their repeated incitement of violence against Palestinian civilians”.
However, the British Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that Israel has the right to defend himself and indicated that he was ready for Great Britain to defend Israel with Iran during his conflict against Israel before rocket and drone attacks. Israel said that it has never asked for help in Great Britain, in contrast to 2024, when the Royal Air Force contributed to shooting in -depth Iranian projectiles.
While the British government border has hardened for Israel, it has argued that the discontinuation of components produced in Great Britain in the global pool will endanger international security by damaging the maintenance and operation of F-35 in other nations.
The legal challenge of al-Haq was supported by Oxfam, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, which were asked in the case, and argued that the government had the obligation to respect and respect the Geneva conventions “, which” under all circumstances “protect civilians in war zones.
Among the applicants – to whose legal team Phillippa Kaufmann KC and Raza Husain KC – also argued that the United Kingdom’s duty of preventing the genocide, whether there is a “serious risk” that it takes place, is not necessarily whether it has already been committed.
“The fact that these parts are now indirectly transferred from America to Israel via the United States instead of supplying Israel directly, the severity of their effects on the ground in the Gaza does not minimize,” they argued.
The legal team of the British government, led by Sir James Eadie KC, who represents the government in important cases, stated that his decision not to complain about all weapon export licenses was legitimate and justified.
The government’s lawyers said that the suspension of the F-35 components would have a negative impact on international security, including NATO, the “gravity of the risks for the F-35 program and on international peace and security if the F-35 program should be impaired” by stopping exports.
The obligation to prevent serious violations of the humanitarian law of international humanitarian law refers to “actual knowledge” that such a violation would take place.
