UK government faces fresh questions over legality of F-35 exports to Israel

The chair of the UK parliament’s international development committee has raised major concerns over the government’s legal justification for continuing to send British-made F-35 components to Israel.

In a letter sent to business secretary Jonathan Reynolds on Thursday, Labour MP Sarah Champion said that she was troubled by the government’s decision to allow the export of the parts indirectly to Israel, given its own assessment that there were clear risks of serious violations of international humanitarian law by Israel in Gaza.

“I remain concerned that there is a real risk that weapon components, manufactured in the UK, could be used in attacks, including those on aid workers or humanitarian infrastructure,” she wrote.

“Adherence to the rule of law, including international law, is fundamental if we are to take a position of leadership on the world stage. We must respect, and ensure respect for [international humanitarian law].”

Last September, the government suspended around 30 arms export licences after a review ordered by the newly elected Labour government found that Israel might have used British-made weapons in serious violations of international law in Gaza.

UK-made F-35 components sent to the F-35 programme’s global pool were exempt over concerns that there was no way to stop sending British parts destined for Israel without disrupting the entire global fleet and endangering international peace and security.

Court documents in a legal challenge to the government’s arms exports to Israel show that senior British officials talked to their American counterparts shortly before the announced suspensions to try to stop UK parts from going to the pool, but concluded that there were too many obstacles. 

One main issue was that, under the governing MOU, the F-35 programme is overseen by an executive steering board, which is chaired by the US and comprises representatives of participating states, and makes decisions by consensus.

All participant states would have to agree for components being used in Israeli F-35s to be limited, and logistics that are not currently used would have to be put in place to separate out components destined for Israel, the court documents outlined.

However, Champion questioned whether the exemption of the UK-made F-35 parts from the suspension was compatible with the UK’s legal obligations, particularly under the Arms Trade Treaty and the Genocide Convention. 

She has asked Reynolds 10 questions focused on these issues, including what legal authority the government has relied upon for the exemption.

She also asked whether the government accepted that the duty to prevent genocide in Gaza had been triggered. If so, what steps “is the UK taking to employ ‘all means’ and do ‘all in their power’ to prevent genocide, as far as possible?” she wrote.

Similar concerns have been raised by the UK-based Global Legal Action Network (Glan) and the Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq, which have challenged the UK government’s decision in the High Court. 

They have also been raised by business and trade committee chair Liam Byrne in a series of letters sent to Foreign Minister Stephen Doughty over the past seven months.

Most recently, Byrne has proposed that Doughty and other Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence ministers appear before his committee before the summer recess to answer questions, among other issues, about government data which shows that licences for the export to Israel of $169m worth of military equipment were approved in the three months following the September 2024 supensions.

Champion’s questions come as the UK government announced this week plans to purchase 12 new F-35 jets that can carry US nuclear weapons.

She has asked Reynolds for answers by 11 July.