Al-Haq’s F-35 lawfare

Only a few short weeks ago, it had been difficult to conceive of a use for the F-35I Adir, the Israeli version of the F-35, more in the common good than the IAF’s operations against the missile threats posed by various non-state terrorist actors linked to the Iranian regime. Then came Operation Rising Lion, Israel’s monumental act of self-defence against a nuclear-threshold Iran. Whilst the photogenic USAF B-2 bomber has taken the headlines for its mountain-busting payload, it was the F-35I Adir that cleared the way for such decisive action.

Yet, despite Israel’s achievements in reducing these threats for the benefit of all, there have been numerous groups advocating a ban on exports of F-35 parts to Israel. They do so in the name of Palestinian human rights. The entire basis of their call is fallacious. The F-35I Adir is being used to reduce the terror threats posed by the so-called Axis of Resistance for the benefit of Palestinians as well.

No? Ask the Palestinians in Hebron recently at the sharp end of a Houthi missile whether, given the choice, they would prefer missile batteries in Yemen to be taken out or left in situ. In the circumstances in which Israel finds itself, lawfare designed to deprive it of F-35 components is not for Palestinian human rights, it is against the common good and a danger to all. If ever there was a situation where everybody’s lives were at risk, it is surely if the Iranian regime had a deliverable nuclear weapon.

Al-Haq, designated by Israel for acting on behalf of the terror group the PFLP, attempted to lay the legal groundwork for such a ban via lawfare in the High Court in London. The group had sought judicial review of a decision in September 2024 by the UK government to suspend 30 export licences of certain military and dual-use items that might be used by Israel in military operations in Gaza, a decision that specifically excluded the export of F-35 components. Al-Haq does not appear to have changed its position since the start of Operation Rising Lion. On June 30, 2025, the court delivered its judgment, rejecting the challenge.

While the courts are prepared to the exercise supervisory jurisdiction over decisions made by the executive which have a political hue to them, it is an established principle that the courts cannot decide political questions. Here the court rightly recognised that this claim was political. It is reported as saying that this “acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts”. Lawfare of this nature must be seen for what it is: a brazen attempt to weaponise the courts in the political arena.