UK Court Rules Export of F-35 Jet Parts to Israel is Lawful

International Desk:
The UK High Court has upheld the government’s decision to export components of the F-35 fighter jet to Israel, despite concerns that such exports might contribute to violations of international humanitarian law. The court stated that decisions of this nature fall under the jurisdiction of policymakers, not the judiciary.

The case was brought forward by several human rights and peace organizations, who argued that Israel is violating international humanitarian law in Gaza, and that the UK, by supplying parts, could be indirectly complicit.

The judges remarked:

“Policy assessments in this regard are a matter for the government. The government has access to intelligence and diplomatic information which the court does not. Therefore, our judgment is limited to legal interpretation—not moral or strategic matters.”

The verdict further stated that:

“There must be clear evidence that the exported components were directly used in the commission of war crimes, which has not been proven in this case.”

Reaction from Human Rights Organizations:

Amnesty International and the Palestine Solidarity Campaign condemned the ruling, stating:

“The UK government is washing its hands of responsibility. This ruling will embolden Israel’s repressive actions.”

The UK government maintained that its military assistance to Israel is “lawful and in line with international commitments,” and insisted the exports are “strictly defensive and part of specific military agreements.”

The F-35 is one of the most advanced fighter jets in the world, developed by the United States and exported only to select partner nations. The UK is a project partner and manufactures many of the aircraft’s components.

International media reports have confirmed the use of F-35s in Israel’s ongoing airstrikes in Gaza.

This verdict has raised serious diplomatic questions about the UK’s global stance. On one hand, it promotes peace talks; on the other, it supplies military aid to a party engaged in active conflict—a contradiction drawing global criticism.