Retaining Britain's role in the F-35 jet fighter program takes precedence over compliance with UK laws on arms export control laws, or any UK obligation to prevent genocide in Israel, UK government lawyers will argue in court this week.

The long-awaited High Court case will test whether the minister violates the law by continuing to provide parts for the F-35 program, which Israel may use to attack Palestinians in Gaza. The four-day case started Tuesday and has taken nearly a year to come to court.

It was brought by the Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq, but it was supported by a range of British human rights groups including Amnesty, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam and the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN).

Court litigation has had an impact; last September, the UK suspended some arms export permits and was about to appear in court in the first 90 minutes to defend the ongoing arms export permits to Israel.

When the announcement was made in September, ministers paid engravings for supplying British components in global F-35 jet hangars, saying that such damage to the entire F-35 plan would pose a threat to NATO's peace and security.

In documents to the court, the UK admitted that its potential supply of F-35 components in Israel violated its own weapons export control laws. The law stipulates that arms export licenses shall not be granted “if there is a clear risk, these items may be used to commit or promote serious violations of international humanitarian law in Israel”. Lawyers for the UK government say maintaining the global F-35 supply chain is crucial and there is no direct supply of parts to Israel.

The UK offers 15% of the value of the F-35 jet, including ejector seats, rear fuselage, active interceptor system, targeting lasers and weapon release cables, mainly through British Aerospace. The UK is the second largest spare parts supplier after the United States.

The UK insists that it is impossible to set conditions for the use of these components, such as requiring Lockheed Martin to temporarily ban F-35 sales to Israel.

Jennine Walker, a barrister representing Al-Haq, said the government believes peace and security are good reasons for the government to leave its own arms export policy.

"Of course, it is possible for the government to prevent the parts provided by the UK to Israel for the F-35 without being affected by the entire global plan without having any significant impact on international peace and security. What really undermines international peace and security are these blatant violations of the law."

Charlotte Andrews-Briscoe, a Glan lawyer representing Al-Haq, stressed the importance of the F-35 on Israeli war efforts, calling their impact "disastrous and persistent."

Israeli pilots said they were working around the clock since October 7, working non-stop, and carrying out 15,000 flight hours and 8,000 missions, when thousands of Hamas-led gunmen attacked Israeli communities around the Gaza Strip, killing 1,200 people and killing 251 hostages. In response, the Israeli campaign has killed more than 52,000 people and has brought most of its territory to ruins. "These opportunities cause death and life-changing damage. They also support ground forces that deliberately starve the already destroyed population."

She said, for example, the F-35 played a key role on March 18, when Israel broke the ceasefire with a wave of air strikes, killing more than 400 people. Palestinian officials said the dead included 183 children and 94 women.

She also warned that the way the government chooses to formulate its legal cases could undermine the relevance of international law. “Unless the International Court of Justice ruled against the Genocide Committee, the Government has concluded that there is no domestic application for the Geneva Convention and unless the International Court of Justice ruled against the Genocide Committee, the Government acknowledged that if the Court accepted these arguments, it would be fully working to prevent genocide under international law will be fully working to the meaning of the obligation to prevent genocide under international law.”

Human Rights Watch Director Yasmine Ahmed said the obligation to prevent genocide is the heart of the genocide Convention from the ashes of World War II.

She said this required all conference signatories to take all reasonable steps to prevent genocide, adding that on September 2, the UK restricted arms export permits but maintained weapons export permits on the F-35S and the government did not even consider the risks of genocide.

In September, when parts were allowed to continue supply, ministers already knew that 41,000 Palestinians in Gaza were killed, including 15,000 children and 1.9 million people, were displaced, with the vast majority being forcibly killed, while 60% of residential property was destroyed.

In a statement revealed at the preliminary hearing, Defense Secretary John Healey said the suspension would affect the “whole F-35 program” and had a profound impact on international peace and security.

He added that this would "destroy the U.S. confidence in Britain and NATO at a critical critical moment in our collective history and restore relations" and could lead to "adversaries" "utilizing any perceived weaknesses".

Part of the evidence from the minister is presented on behalf of the Ministry of Defense in public, but Defense officials claim that any decision to limit F-35 parts is a problem with the F-35 executive steering committee, an agency that acts only through consensus. It has added over 1,000 F-35s, currently performing a high percentage in UK or NATO operations.

The government believes that making such a judgment on national security is mainly a matter of administrative personnel.