Global Civil Society Coalition Calls for End to F-35 Jet Exports to Israel

A global coalition of 232 civil society organisations has called on international partners in the F-35 fighter jet supply chain to end their arms exports to Israel, which is facing a case of genocide at the International Court of Justice.

The Australian Centre for International Justice (ACIJ) said on Tuesday that the coalition urged all government partners in the F-35 fighter jet supply chain, including the Australian government, to “immediately halt all direct and indirect transfers of F-35 parts and components to Israel in accordance with their international legal obligations.”

F-35 partner countries, including Australia, Canada, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, the UK and the US, have thus far “refused to cease exporting parts and components manufactured in their countries for use in F-35 fighter jets, despite their ultimate end use by Israel in aerial attacks that have caused devastating and irreparable harm to Palestinians in Gaza,” said the ACIJ.

Signatories to the joint call include organizations from Europe, the Americas, and Asia, as well as the Arab world.

South Africa was the first nation to take Israel to the ICJ over its genocidal war on Gaza that has claimed more than 48,000 lives and reduced the enclave to rubble. A ceasefire that took hold on 19 January is currently in place.

“The fragility of the Gaza ceasefire underscores the risk of further violations and the need to halt arms exports to Israel, including F-35s,” said the coalition. “This is also highlighted by Israel’s continued illegal use of military fighter jets in the occupied West Bank, especially Jenin.”

The ACIJ said Israel’s use of F-35 jets — with Australian-made sole-source parts — in its wide-scale bombardment of Palestinians in Gaza has been publicly documented. “In one such instance, an F-35 jet was used by Israel in July 2024 to drop three 2,000-lb (907-kg) bombs on Al-Mawasi in Khan Younis, Gaza, a so-called ‘safe zone’, killing 90 Palestinians,” it pointed out.

It added that many civil society organisations in several F-35 partner jurisdictions have initiated legal action to challenge the direct and indirect export of parts and components in the F-35 supply chain to Israel, seeking to hold governments accountable. The ACIJ itself has mounted one such legal challenge in Australia.

Sociologist Jake Lynch told Anadolu that Australia’s Ferra aerospace company was the “sole supplier of a crucial component in the F-35 global supply chain. And from the US or UK, it is almost certainly then being exported to Israel.”

He said that both the UK and Australian governments have “stated that no weapons embargo on exports to Israel would include the F-35 supply chain, for fear of upsetting” the US. He noted that Ferra’s Brisbane plant is “subject to regular protest actions over this.” 

Rita Jabri Markwell, a solicitor at Birchgrove Legal in Sydney, told Anadolu that since 7 October, 2023, the Australian government has invested $13.785 billion in companies blacklisted by the UN for arms transfers to Israel.

Lynch, who teaches at Sydney University, regretted that “Australian society is being degraded because of the political consensus, among parties of government, for military cooperation with the US, which means allying with Israel come what may.”

“Australia is failing to meet its binding obligation to prevent genocide while rewarding those responsible with lucrative contracts,” said Markwell in an email interview. She clarified that it was “binding” on Australia to prevent genocide. “Genocide is different from other crimes in that… there is a binding duty on states not only to punish it but to prevent it.”

She said that orders issued by the ICJ on 26 January last year and the warnings issued by the UN to all member states on 23 February and 20 June last year “make it clear” that this duty is now in effect.

“The ongoing dealings reveal a significant conflict of interest, preventing the Australian government from imposing sanctions,” explained Markwell. “Sanctioning these companies would likely trigger intense scrutiny over why the government has allocated billions to them despite being fully aware of the situation. This raises serious questions about the misuse of public funds and power and the evasion of legal obligations to maintain political survival.”