The UK government has recently won a legal challenge regarding its decision to continue selling spare parts for F-35 fighter jets to Israel. This ruling comes even as the government has suspended other arms licenses due to concerns about humanitarian law violations in Gaza.
The case has raised significant questions about the government’s stance on the risk of genocide in Gaza. Lawyers representing the government argued in court that there is no evidence to support claims of genocide occurring. They maintained that supplying parts for the F-35 jets does not violate the Genocide Convention.
However, this position has not been publicly justified by ministers, despite repeated inquiries from members of parliament. Some MPs have pointed out a contradiction between the government’s internal assessments and its public statements. Recently, Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner stated that only international courts can determine if genocide is happening, which conflicts with the government’s assertion that there is no serious risk of genocide.
Green MP Ellie Chowns criticized the government for not being transparent about its risk assessments, stating that the public deserves to know how such conclusions were reached. She emphasized that the UK has a legal duty under the Genocide Convention to prevent genocide, rather than waiting for a court’s verdict.
Zarah Sultana, an independent MP, echoed these concerns, questioning why the government has conducted internal assessments if it claims the matter is outside its purview. She called for the publication of these assessments, highlighting a lack of accountability from the current government, which had previously demanded transparency from the previous administration.
The High Court ultimately ruled that this issue is political and should be addressed by the government, not the courts. A lawyer from the Global Legal Action Network noted that the court’s decision does not endorse the government’s claims but reflects a separation of powers.
The government has defended its decision to continue arms sales, citing advice from Defence Secretary John Healey. He argued that halting these exports would negatively affect the entire F-35 program and international security.
In response to the court ruling, Labour MP Richard Burgon stated that the government must clarify its position. He insisted that the government can no longer avoid responsibility for its arms exports to Israel, especially amid ongoing violence in Gaza.
The UK government has not commented on the discrepancies between its statements to parliament and the court. However, a spokesperson emphasized that the court upheld the government’s decision-making process, asserting that the UK’s export controls are among the most stringent in the world.
As the situation in Gaza continues to evolve, the government’s stance on arms exports and allegations of genocide remains a contentious issue, prompting calls for greater transparency and accountability.