Singapore Named in Controversial UN Report on F-35 Parts Supply to Israel Amid Gaza Conflict

The recent United Nations report naming Singapore among 19 states allegedly supplying F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel has drawn global scrutiny and intense geopolitical analysis. As conflict in Gaza intensifies, the international supply chain behind advanced military hardware is under a critical spotlight—raising complex questions about accountability, complicity, and the blurred ethical lines of transnational defense procurement.

A New Lens on Global Defense Supply Chains

The UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese’s October 2025 report on Gaza highlighted an unprecedented network of over sixty states whose commercial and governmental actors are linked—directly or indirectly—to Israel’s military campaign. According to the report, Singapore was listed among 19 states participating in the F-35 fighter jet industrial ecosystem. These parts, developed in a collaborative international framework, find their way to Israel through the multinational Joint Strike Fighter consortium spearheaded by the United States and its allies.​

This complex arrangement means that even with arms export controls in place, countries such as Singapore may unintentionally contribute to military actions abroad. The F-35 program involves components produced and integrated across partner nations, after which the jets—or parts for them—are exported onward by lead contractors like Lockheed Martin. Because of this, direct accountability for end-use becomes diffuse and difficult to trace, muddying the waters of international responsibility.

The UN’s Complicity Argument

At the heart of the Special Rapporteur’s findings lies the charge of collective complicity. Albanese argues that by providing technical, logistical, or operational support to the F-35 program, the listed states are “enabling” actions that may constitute war crimes, including genocide, as alleged in the context of Palestine. The report does not claim that these countries are explicitly approving export to conflict zones, but it does assert their systemic role in a transnational arms pipeline: "The collective crime argument is not about intent, but about outcome and responsibility shared across the supply chain."​

Singapore—Caught Between Commerce and Diplomacy

For Singapore, being named in such a report places it in a diplomatic quandary. As an advanced manufacturing and logistics hub, Singapore’s participation in the F-35 program is both a strategic and commercial decision, grounded in its military modernization policy and close bilateral ties with the US. However, the disturbing images from Gaza and the international outcry risk repercussions for Singapore’s global reputation, particularly among Muslim-majority countries and non-aligned states.​

The Singaporean government has so far maintained that its defense exports are tightly regulated, with licenses contingent on international and domestic law. Yet, the UN report’s framing underscores the difficulty of oversight in multinational programs—even components with ostensibly civilian or dual-use purposes can end up in active conflict theatres.

International Call to Re-Evaluate Military Ties

The report resonated with a burgeoning international movement, led by over 230 civil society organizations, that urges a halt to all military assistance—including aircraft parts—to countries facing credible allegations of war crimes. Their contention: continuing supply chains, even indirectly, perpetuates impunity and undermines the rules-based international order.​

Ultimately, the UN’s naming of Singapore is less an accusation of deliberate wrongdoing than a clarion call for a re-examination of global arms governance. The challenge for policymakers, defense contractors, and civil society is to reconcile national security priorities with international humanitarian obligations in an era where supply chains are borderless, but accountability must not be.