LONDON (Reuters) -A Palestinian rights group on Thursday sought to overturn a ruling that Britain lawfully allowed F-35 fighter jet components to be indirectly exported to Israel, despite accepting they could be used to breach international humanitarian law.
Al-Haq, a group based in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, unsuccessfully challenged Britain’s Department for Business and Trade over its decision last year to exempt F-35 parts when it suspended export licences for arms that could be used in the conflict in Gaza.
The group asked the Court of Appeal for permission to challenge a lower court ruling that found Britain’s decision was lawful and dismissed Al-Haq’s challenge.
Al-Haq’s case was heard as Israel and Palestinian militant group Hamas signed an agreement to cease fire and free Israeli hostages in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, the biggest step yet to end two years of war in which over 67,000 Palestinians have been killed.
BRITAIN’S EXEMPTION OF F-35 PARTS
When it suspended export licences in 2024, the United Kingdom had assessed Israel was not committed to complying with international humanitarian law in its military campaign in Gaza.
But Britain did not suspend licences for British-made F-35 components, which go into a pool of spare parts Israel can use on its existing F-35 jets.
London’s High Court rejected the challenge in June, saying in its ruling that business minister Jonathan Reynolds was “faced with the blunt choice of accepting the F-35 carve out or withdrawing from the F-35 programme and accepting all the defence and diplomatic consequences which would ensue”.
Lawyers for Al-Haq, however, said while Britain had assessed the risks of suspending the export of F-35 parts, it failed to properly assess the risks of continuing to do so.
James Eadie, a lawyer for the British government, argued the only certain way to ensure F-35 parts did not reach Israel was by withdrawing from the international F-35 programme, which would have had “extraordinarily serious impacts for the UK and international peace and security”.
The Court of Appeal is expected to give its ruling at a later date.
(Reporting by Sam Tobin; Editing by Aidan Lewis)
Comments