This Declassified Australia investigation has been assisted by the investigative news site, The Ditch.
Every day that it persists, Australia’s continuing cowardly fence sitting in the face of the genocide in Gaza marks another brick being removed from the structural support of international law and justice.
The “international rules-based order”, which Australia so proudly claims to support, is in its present parlous state because it is openly being flouted by Israel and the United States with the complicity of other Western countries including Australia.
Complicity in such egregious breaches of international law need not be by direct positive action; it may also be constituted by a refusal by a state to comply with its international obligations to take steps to prevent genocide. In that respect Australia has been spectacularly passive but perhaps also underhandedly active.
The question of Australia’s role in supplying Israel with materiel with which to conduct its genocide remains open notwithstanding the government’s consistent assertions that it has not sent or permitted the export of weapons to Israel since the Palestinian uprising in October 2023.
Declassified Australia has previously critiqued government secrecy and Defence’s semantic evasions, and activists everywhere have been trying to piece together exactly what role is played by Australian contractors or suppliers of goods or services, including but not limited to military goods and services, in the continuation of the genocide. Further incriminating material has now emerged.
Finding the goods exported to Israel
Declassified Australia has previously obtained and published exclusively the complete list of goods exported to Israel from Australia that were covered by Export Declaration Forms, from 7 October 2023 to 29 March 2025.
Early in June 2025 we sought further Freedom of Information Act access to “a detailed list of actual ‘Goods Description(s)’ included in Export Declaration forms for exports to Israel for the period from 30 March 2025 to date.”
To obviate the usual “commercial-in-confidence”, etc refusals Declassified Australia specified that we were not seeking confidential, commercial information of any kind, including the names of the exporters, but rather “the verbatim descriptions used by the exporters in completing the legally required Export Declaration form”.
The many items listed in the new bundle of material produced in response requires expert analysis and probably greater detail to determine the probable use of the listed items, which are often obscurely named.
Not to be put off by such official obfuscation, and to get some indication of the potential uses of the exports listed, Declassified Australia had the information analysed to look for material relating first to Elbit Systems and second to Elbit’s Hermes drones.
The deep AI analysis firstly listed 14 items from the FOI documents which “could potentially the integrated into Elbit Systems products, such as UAVs, communication systems, or surveillance equipment, depending on their specific configurations and applications.”
The separate second analysis for items that might be used in Hermes drones yielded more striking results, stating:
“The Hermes drone series, manufactured by Elbit Systems, is a family of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) used for intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance (ISR), and target acquisition. These drones rely heavily on advanced electronics, including communication systems, sensors, and data processing units. Based on external knowledge of Hermes drones and the items listed in the document, the following electronic items could potentially be used in Hermes drones:
Communication Systems:
1. ‘Comms (Rs232/485) Supports Modbus Master’ – Could be used for interfacing with onboard systems or ground control stations.
2. ‘Gateway 8 Channel’ – May be used for managing communication channels between the drone and ground control.
3. ‘R-Net Host Unit Rs485/232 W/Out Box’ – Useful for data transmission and communication protocols.
Sensors and Measurement:
4. ‘Temperature And Humidity Sensor’ – Could be integrated into environmental monitoring systems onboard the drone.
5. Pressure Transmitter’ – May be used for altitude or air pressure monitoring.
6.‘Level Measurement Equipment’ – Could assist in fuel or liquid level monitoring within the drone.
Power and Control Systems:
7. ‘Electronic Speed Controller’ – Likely applicable for controlling the drone’s propulsion system.
8. ‘Lithium Oxide And Hydroxide’ – Used in batteries to power the drone’s electronic systems.
9. ‘Signal Generators’ – Could be used for testing or calibrating communication and sensor systems.
Imaging and Surveillance:
10. ‘Video Equipment’ – Essential for ISR operations, including real-time video transmission.
11. ‘X-Ray Generators’ – While not directly applicable to drones, advanced imaging systems could use similar technology.
Data Processing and Integration:
12. ‘Units Of Automatic Data Processing Machines’ – Likely used for onboard data processing and analytics.
13. ‘Power Quality Analyzer’ – Could ensure stable power delivery to critical systems.
Cabling and Connectivity:
14. ‘Cables’ – General use for connecting various electronic components within the drone.
“These items align with the electronic requirements of Hermes drones, which include advanced communication systems, sensors, and power management technologies. This assessment is based on external knowledge of Elbit Systems’ Hermes drone capabilities.”
The information available to the analysis done here was limited to deep AI research and can only be verified with absolute certainty by the federal government releasing more detail on the obscurely named items. It reveals the degree of the lack of transparency in the listings of exports to Israel, whether initially made public or unearthed via FOI searches. Declassified Australia will continue to seek from Defence clearer details of the items on this list.
Obscure transparency
In June 2024 a tightening of ministerial scrutiny of defence export rules was introduced, and was reported:
“Australian defence exports are facing tighter scrutiny under federal rules that alert Defence Minister Richard Marles to every potential shipment to Israel, ensuring no military equipment has been supplied to the country since the invasion of Gaza.
“Approvals are being escalated to Marles regardless of the value of the defence contract, superseding an earlier protocol that allowed low-value deals to be approved by a delegate within the Defence Department.”
However the public cannot seek comfort in this.
When Declassified Australia issued an FOI request on Defence for documents relating to the advice referred to above from the Department to its Minister about items exported to Israel, the documents were withheld.
Reasons given for the lack of disclosure included the protection of supply chains for ADF capabilities, concerns that Defence could be sued if it discloses commercial in confidence information relating to Australian companies doing business with Israel, and concern for the protection from protesters of suppliers of goods relating to Israel.
The last of those ‘exemptions’ seems a formal admission of the government’s willingness to support the genocide and protect corporate perpetrators from justified public outrage.
New evidence of continuing trade in weapons components
Declassified Australia, working on conjunction with Irish investigative news outlet The Ditch, has now seen new shipping records relating to exports directly to Israel from Australia of parts and components with military uses by the private sector.
Australian companies are now heavily invested in ‘joint-capabilities’ with Israeli arms manufacturers. Examples abound, of producers of specialised products which Israeli ‘defence’ companies wish to acquire. Many of the latter are not ‘weapons’ in common parlance but they have, and can be and are used for, military purposes.
An example is Brisbane company Naeco, which specialises in thermal management systems “for the defence sector”, has “pioneered a world-first liquid cooling system for airborne radar, communication systems and electronic warfare (EW) equipment”.
Naeco’s developing links to Israel’s defence industry, were first reported in July 2020:
‘The Australian wing of Israeli defence giant Rafael has joined forces with Brisbane-based Naeco, announcing a $1.3 million strategic partnership with the precision engineering business.
“The partnership with Rafael will leverage its expertise in the airborne technology sector, which sees it supplying its BNet communication system and electronic warfare technologies to the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and multiple other national defence forces.
“Naeco said that the agreement would ‘provide new export opportunities for products designed, developed and manufactured in Australia, creating four local jobs in the process’.”
Shipping records sighted by Declassified Australia, show that just this month, on 6 July 2025, Naeco despatched from Australia to Elbit Systems in Israel a significant shipment of brazed aluminium heat sinks, used for cooling electronic gear.
It seems that Naeco provides admirable customer service relations to its Israeli customers – two of the 12 pieces freighted to Tel Aviv were marked “Warranty repair and return”.
The heat sinks are marked ELOP indicating possible use for Electro-Optics which Elbit uses for airborne reconnaissance such as the Hermes 900 drone and the F/A-18 Super Hornet fighter jet.
It would be interesting to know what Naeco certified about that shipment in its defence export declaration, and how the government satisfied itself to permit that export while the genocide in Gaza rages on.
Keeping the drones flying
Similarly, the records we sighted show the export on the same day this month (July 2025) by Microair Avionics from Australia to Elbit in Israel of a T2000UAV-L transponder. The Microair transponder left as cargo on the same commercial flight from Sydney as the Naeco-manufactured ‘heat sinks’.
Microair Avionics Pty Ltd is an Australian avionics company designing and manufacturing avionic products specifically for light aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles, and is also based in Brisbane in Queensland.
It makes and supplies especially for drones its T2000UAV-L Transponder to provide identification and separation while in the air. Microair advertises the transponder as being ideal for a military attack drone (emphasis added):
“The T2000UAV-L was designed for very low power consumption which permits prolonged operation on the battery… At only 454g (16oz) the T2000UAV-L does not eat up precious payload capacity, and its physical size and shape make it easy to install.”
Again, this part is not a ‘weapon’ per se but obviously it is a critical component of an extraordinarily lethal weapon, one that has been used relentlessly by Israel in bombing civilian infrastructure in Gaza and in its ‘precision’ targeting of individuals, in both cases killing and maiming many innocent civilians of all ages.
Did the Australia Government approve, in the middle of the genocide, the export of this critical component of the Israeli war machine?
Declassified Australia submitted several questions to the Defence Department about the nature and purpose of the export of these components directly to Israel. We also asked whether the exports have been approved by the department, and if so what steps were taken to ensure that those items exported will not be used in breach of international law. Declassified Australia has not received a response at the time of publication.
The Australian government’s continuing lack of transparency about exports to Israel is sadly consistent with its failure to take any active steps to curb the genocide.
The International Court of Justice has specifically said what actions UN member states should take concerning Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestinian lands, and if those actions were taken the genocide would quickly end.
By failing so to act and by its role in facilitating the continuing export to Israel of military, dual use and non-military items used to support Israeli war crimes, the Australian government is directly complicit in both the genocide and other breaches of international law.
Global hubs unite the F-35 trade
Searching for information outside conventional channels in fact confirms the suspicion that Australia is still exporting or permitting the export of items to support or sustain Israel’s barbarous genocide of the Palestinians in their own land and criminal forays against its neighbours.
Data examined by Declassified Australia, in conjunction with Irish investigative news outlet The Ditch, clearly establishes that items are still being sent from Australia to Israel apparently contrary to international law.
At the time of reporting earlier this month by Declassified Australia, it was impossible to tell whether the shipping records we sighted showed just two individual shipments, or are a glimpse of a much bigger Australian direct trade of F-35 parts to Israel, although evidence is pointing towards the latter.
RAAF Base Williamtown, the Asia Pacific regional hub for maintenance and warehousing of components, is the third facility in the global support solution for the F-35 program with other primary locations in the Netherlands and the United States.
The Williamtown hub was established to maintain Royal Australian Air Force F-35 aircraft and F-35 variants operating in the region. This includes aircraft operating out of Singapore, Japan and South Korea, from US Navy and Royal Navy carrier aircraft and US Marine Corps F-35Bs deployed in the region.
Hubs store US supplied parts that are then forwarded to F-35 users (in specific regions), with the parts remaining the property of the United States until they’re fitted on an F-35 Joint Strike Fighter aircraft.
The Netherlands hosts a European Regional Warehouse for F-35 parts at Woensdrecht Air Base. This warehouse manages the distribution of these parts to various countries, which would normally include Israel.
However, a Dutch appeals court ordered the Netherlands to stop exporting and transiting F-35 parts to Israel, saying there was a clear risk they were being used in “serious violations of international humanitarian law”. The Dutch State immediately lodged an appeal at its Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s decision is pending, but until then, the lower court’s ruling remains in effect.
Australia, as an official partner in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, is proving to be a reliable provider of parts and components to the F-35 program, pending the outcome of the Dutch appeal.
It is also worth mentioning that in a British High Court case relating to the supply to Israel of parts for the F-35 fighter jets the Court ruled that,
“Any instruction to the spares pool or the assembly lines that UK components are not to be used in Israeli F-35s would require the consensus of all the partners.” (para 174)
Based on closed evidence, the court accepted “that there was no realistic possibility of persuading all other partner nations that F-35 exports to Israel should be suspended” (para 180). As such, the only alternative to the F-35 carve out was complete withdrawal from the programme with damaging defence and diplomatic consequences….’
In other words, there’s no need for those nations entangled in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program to comply with their legal obligations under international law to prevent genocide when the spoils of the F35 program are at stake.
In a 2022 brochure Lockheed Martin confirms the “global supply chain of more than 1900 companies [including Israeli companies] based in the US and in every nation acquiring the F35”.
UN Special Rapporteur on ‘corporate responsibility’
On 30 June 2025 Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, submitted her report “From economy of occupation to economy of genocide”.
Ms Albanese’s earlier reports have been concise summaries of the history and then current situations in Gaza and the West Bank. They are disturbing snapshots of the Israeli Government’s egregious conduct of its long-planned genocide.
They include her 2024 report (A/79/384 24-178342/32 ‘Genocide as colonial erasure’, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967) which contained (paras.86-90) clear guidance as to what should be done by all States to stop the genocide. Nothing was done, including by our country.
Her current report investigates the corporate machinery sustaining the Israeli genocide and identifies many of the war profiteers. After she notes the failures of UN members to comply with their obligations under international law to do all they can to stop or prevent it, she highlights the responsibility of corporate actors and finally issues a call to arms to civil society.
The focus on the responsibility of corporations supplying Israel is so definitive it is worth quoting from in quite some detail (emphasis added):
“While political leaders and Governments shirk their obligations, far too many corporate entities have profited from the Israeli economy of illegal occupation, apartheid and now genocide. The complicity exposed by the report is just the tip of the iceberg; ending it will not happen without holding the private sector accountable, including its executives.
“International law recognizes varying degrees of responsibility – each requiring scrutiny and accountability, particularly in this case, where a people’s self-determination and very existence are at stake. This is a necessary step to end the genocide and dismantle the global system that has allowed it.
94. The Special Rapporteur urges Member States:
(a) To impose sanctions and a full arms embargo on Israel, including all existing agreements and dual-use items such as technology and civilian heavy machinery;
(b) To suspend or prevent all trade agreements and investment relations, and impose sanctions, including asset freezes, on entities and individuals involved in activities that may endanger the Palestinians;
(c) To enforce accountability, ensuring that corporate entities face legal consequences for their involvement in serious violations of international law.
95. The Special Rapporteur urges corporate entities:
(a) To promptly cease all business activities and terminate relationships directly linked with, contributing to and causing human rights violations and international crimes against the Palestinian people, in accordance with international corporate responsibilities and the law of self-determination;
(b) To pay reparations to the Palestinian people, including in the form of an apartheid wealth tax along the lines of post-apartheid South Africa.
96. The Special Rapporteur urges the International Criminal Court and national judiciaries to investigate and prosecute corporate executives and/or corporate entities for their part in the commission of international crimes and laundering of the proceeds from those crimes.
97. The Special Rapporteur urges the United Nations:
(a) To comply with the International Court of Justice advisory opinion of 2024;
(b) To include all entities involved in Israeli unlawful occupation in the OHCHR database (to be properly accessible on the OHCHR website).
98. The Special Rapporteur urges trade unions, lawyers, civil society and ordinary citizens to press for boycotts, divestments, sanctions, justice for Palestine and accountability at the international and domestic levels; together, the people of the world can end these unspeakable crimes.”
Her report obviously touched a nerve or many in the United States: things have ratchetted up a notch since the release of that recent report with the US Secretary of State Mark Rubio announcing the imposition of sanctions on Ms Albanese because of her allegedly ‘anti-Israel’ stance.
Francesca Albanese has been critiquing the actions of the Israeli government, and its enablers, in relation to the Occupied Palestinian Territories from long before October 7 2023.
Israel has equally long been critical of her reports, and understandably so, but its protests now fall on deaf ears. The reports show careful observation and fact-gathering, comprehensive analysis and evaluation of statements and events and then the logical and legal bases for her findings concerning Israel’s systematic infringement of Palestinian rights.
The accuracy of her observations and opinions is borne out by multiple reports and direct visual evidence, coming almost daily, of further Israeli atrocities.
The push for sanctions
Why did this particular report touch a nerve in both Tel Aviv and Washington? The most likely ‘offence’ is Francesca Albanese’s call – consistent with last year’s ICJ ruling – for widespread military, material, economic and financial sanctions on Israel. Widespread and far-reaching sanctions are now the world’s only real prospect of containing the inhuman savagery of Israeli lawlessness that is consistently backed by the US.
Another touchy area may be Ms Albanese’s focus on corporate accountability and individual responsibility. Her recent report focuses on both ‘defence’ companies and also non-military support companies supplying equipment critical to the genocide, like earthmoving and demolition equipment. Targeting those beacons of corporate enterprise is not the path to endearment within the Trump administration or any Western government.
Even after an earlier, failed attempt by the US and Israel to have Ms Albanese sacked, her attackers re-emerged within days of her publishing a report that might ‘interfere with business’ – the business of genocide – and result in calls for accountability.
The decision was made to sanction her personally because of her ‘campaign of political and economic warfare against the United States and Israel’. The very fact that the US and Israel feel sufficiently threatened to impose these sanctions lends weight to the need for Albanese’s suggested courses of action and their likely efficacy.
Given the extent of Australia’s exports to Israel throughout the genocidal period, as uncovered by Declassified Australia and other independent investigators, it is astounding that in May the Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, could respond to a journalist asking about sanctions being imposed on Israel, by saying: “Well, what are the sanctions you’re suggesting?”
By that non-answer, the Prime Minister ignored the sanctions that have already been proposed to governments like his – the sanctions suggested last year by the International Court of Justice, and those suggested in the many reports of UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese.
Australia can and should act by taking up the courses of action suggested by the ICJ and by Ms Albanese and impose extensive economic and political sanctions on Israel. Given the likely lack of sufficient moral principle or political courage in our politicians to do that, we should at least press our government to stop all trade and other dealings with Israel for so long as its genocide continues.
Finally, and of equal importance, when our government won’t act every person who opposes the genocide will consider how they can act individually to contribute to the suggested courses of action and outcomes. Perhaps following the BDS approach – ‘Boycott, Divest, Sanction’ – is the only way people can try to do what our government should do but won’t. The slaughter must be stopped.
In the end, it is a ‘political’ decision
Australia’s entry into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program was a political decision made by the Howard government regarding the nation’s defence requirements. For any country with a Westminster system of government, it is a policy matter for the legislature.
A court directing the supply of a country’s produced parts involves an interference with the government policy relating to the country’s national defence, and for that reason in the UK the Court didn’t feel it was empowered to transgress on the recognised division of powers between the courts and the legislature. That’s the overriding legal principle about the division of the executive and legislative functions.
If that legal decision is correct, the F-35 program can’t be undone unless the legislature undoes it. Individual countries could not be able unilaterally to refuse to make direct supply, or the global supply program simply would not work.
In any case partner nations would be unlikely to refuse to provide Israel with parts and components because, relying upon their ‘contractual’ obligations under the joint agreement, Israel is a participant in, and Israeli companies form part of, the F-35 global supply chain.
But a government could also circumvent any potential difficulty or conflict with its international legal obligations if it is able to say, “We will not supply parts and components to Israel but we will continue to send them to the program’s global pool”, and thereby abnegate responsibility by transferring the decision and the inevitable supply to the US administrator.
The F-35 program is an example of how the Government chose to forsake its obligations under international law because it is constrained in its ability to implement them by its role as a partner nation in the F-35 JSF program.
Most significantly though, the UK court decision is not a win for the Australian government.
The court decision was not ‘a win’ for the UK government because the court did not rule on the government’s conduct as a matter of what is ‘right’ or legally justifiable or morally or ethically correct. It didn’t have to address any of those questions because the separation of powers doctrine obviated them.
The Australian government will no doubt be prepared to mount a similar argument in any legal case fought here.
Do you have more information about this story?
If you have information about this story or other important matters of public interest, you may contact the author in confidence through the link below:
Before you go…
If you appreciate Declassified Australia’s investigations, remember that it costs both time and money. Join over 10,000 followers and get our Newsletter for updates.
We’d really appreciate if you could subscribe to Declassified Australia to support our ongoing investigations. Thank you.
