War on Gaza: British officials warned of criminal liability in connection with F-35 exports to Israel

Senior British officials have been warned they could face criminal prosecution if they continue to export British-made components for F-35 fighter jets that may end up in Israel.

The warning, sent in letters to the foreign, economic and defense ministers on Friday, comes from two groups threatening new Supreme Court lawsuits over the export of these parts.

The Palestinian human rights organisation Al-Haq and the UK-based Global Legal Action Network (Glan) told ministers that they and arms company executives could face charges of aiding and abetting war crimes if they continued to transfer the components.

On 2 September, the British government announced the suspension of 30 arms export licences to Israel. There were fears that the use of these weapons in the Gaza Strip could violate international humanitarian law.

However, the list did not include British-made F-35 parts that are shipped to third countries and could ultimately end up in Israel. This raised serious concerns among arms activists and human rights groups, who say the fighter jet, 15 percent of which is made in Britain, played a crucial role in Israel's offensive.

Shawan Jabarin, Al-Haq's director general, said Israel has been carrying out “genocidal attacks against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip” for nearly a year.

“We know that Israeli airstrikes and bombings with F-35 fighter jets have devastated densely populated areas, including shelters for displaced Palestinians,” Jabarin said.

“The irrefutable evidence that Israel is committing violations and international crimes means that the British government cannot feign ignorance.”

The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO), the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) and the Ministry of Defence (MOD) did not immediately respond to Middle East Eye’s requests for comment.

Demands for compliance

Earlier this week, 39 UN experts warned that “the edifice of international law is on a knife edge” as most states fail to comply with their international obligations following the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion in July.

The court found that Israel's decades-long occupation of the Palestinian territories was unlawful. Although the ruling is not binding, it carries considerable legal and moral weight.

The UN experts said the ICJ had given “clear instructions regarding the responsibilities of states” and called on them to comply with the ruling by imposing a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel, among a range of other measures.

“The UK must ensure that it neither recognises as legitimate, nor supports or encourages the situation created by Israel's unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territories.”

– British NGOs

On Wednesday, the British government abstained from voting on a UN General Assembly resolution supporting the ICJ's opinion; the resolution was subsequently adopted by an overwhelming majority.

Fifteen British NGOs expressed their “deep disappointment” at the abstention and called on the government to take “decisive action” two months after the ICJ's findings.

“The UK must ensure that it neither recognises as legitimate, nor supports or encourages the situation created by Israel's unlawful presence in the occupied Palestinian territory,” they wrote after the vote.

On Friday, Al-Haq and Glan questioned how Business Secretary Jonathan Reynolds could justify the continued transfer of F-35 parts to third countries.

Their concerns echo those of 37 MPs who last week raised the alarm that the government had justified the exemption of these parts with a legal provision that had never been formally applied before and which they believed required parliamentary scrutiny.

They may soon have answers. In the coming weeks, as part of the ongoing legal review of Al-Haq and Glan's arms exports, the government will share internal documents with the two groups outlining their assessment process.

The groups said that if they were not satisfied with the government's reasoning, they would request a temporary suspension of exports. If granted, this would result in a complete suspension of exports to Israel pending further assessment.