UK government set to argue the F-35 program is more important than preventing genocide

It is going to argue that complying with the law is optional

After our government refused to allow injured Palestinian children into the UK for treatment, you probably thought it was not possible to be more ashamed of this country, but you would be wrong. Remember how in my last article I explained that we know beyond doubt the UK is arming Israel during a genocide? Well, they’re not even denying it.

The Guardian reports the government will argue in court this week that the F-35 fighter jet program takes priority over trying to prevent a genocide. This is going to be its key argument against the suspension of all arms licences to Israel.

Aside from anything else, most of the arms licences don’t appear to relate to the F-35 program, being categorised by Israel as “Bombs, Grenades, Torpedoes, Mines, Missiles And Similar Munitions Of War And Parts Thereof”. But let’s focus on the F-35 parts for now.

When the government made its decision to continue supplying F-35 parts, it did not consider its duty to prevent genocide in its reasoning. That would be like not considering the duty to protect patients when allowing Dr Harold Shipman to keep his medical licence. If we are manufacturing weapons of war, the very lowest bar is to ensure they are not used to commit genocide.

The government is going to claim that suspending arms exports to Israel would threaten NATO’s peace and security, even though Israel is not officially part of NATO. It’s all but admitting that Israel is a NATO outpost in the Middle East to protect the oil industry and ensure Europe has access to the Suez canal.

The UK insists it would not be possible to tell Lockheed Martin to stop sending F-35s to Israel, but we are legally obliged to do so! If Lockheed Martin says no, we are supposed to stop sending it parts.

One argument that keeps coming up is that we are a small part of the supply chain, but we produce 15% of F-35 parts, making us the second largest supplier after the US. Without those parts, no more F-35s could be sent to Israel to butcher civilians. If we were to take this position, it would likely bring the onslaught to an end. The government knows this and is choosing not to act.

Let’s be real, this is not about protecting NATO, it’s about our government willingly participating in genocide. If it did not want to participate, it would not be conducting surveillance flights for Israel from its base in Cyprus. It would not be treating Palestine Action like terrorists for trying to stop the supply of quadcopters to Israel.

Note how they aren’t even denying genocide is taking place any more. It’s hard to keep denying it when Netanyahu is coming right out and admitting it. He recently said at a Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee meeting:

“We are demolishing more and more houses, they have nowhere to go back to. The only obvious outcome will be Gazans wishing to emigrate out of the strip. Our main problem is finding receptive countries.”

Gone are the days of pretending there were Hamas tunnels under those houses. The destruction is now just about making the land unliveable so the survivors have to leave.

The UK government plans to argue that we have no obligation to enforce international law until the ICC has ruled that a genocide has taken place, which could be years from now.

We are legally obliged to not just avoid participation in genocide but do everything we can to prevent it, including imposing sanctions, using diplomatic pressure, and even speaking to the UN about possible military action. What we are not supposed to do is sit back, and we are certainly not supposed to arm the people committing genocide.

It says everything about the British legal system that is has taken more than a year for this case to come to court, meaning that even if the government loses, it has essentially got away with butchering Palestinians throughout this time. The worst case scenario for the government is that the court orders it to suspend all arms licences in which case Israel can simply announce job done. It can announce another fake ceasefire and the UK government can argue it is free to resume arms exports.

Whatever happens next, our system has shown itself to be woefully inadequate when it comes to enforcing British and international law. The system is set up to maintain the pretence of respecting human rights while allowing government ministers to get away with war crimes.

Our arms export rules say we can’t provide licences “if there is a clear risk those items might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law”. The government has already confirmed this is the case with Israel, meaning legally it doesn’t have a leg to stand on. It would appear the government sees laws as advisory guidelines, rather than binding rules, and is hoping the court feels the same.

Just stop and think of the implications for a moment because this is as serious as it gets. The government is not going to argue that it is complying with the law, but that it can simply disregard the law. If the court accepts this argument, it will be the day it was ruled our leaders can participate in genocide without repercussions. It will be the end of human rights.

---

Thank you for reading. All of my content will always be freely available, but if you wish to support my work, you can do so at Ko-fi or Patreon. Likes, shares and comments also help massively.