A PALESTINIAN human rights group has lost a High Court legal challenge against the UK Government over exports of military equipment to Israel.
Al-Haq had taken legal action against the Department for Business and Trade over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets, which have been documented being used in Gaza.
In September last year, the UK Government suspended some 30 out of 350 export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law.
But an exemption was made for some licences related to parts for F-35s, with lawyers for Al-Haq telling the High Court in May that this “carve-out” was unlawful and “gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime”.
In a 72-page ruling on Monday, Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn said that “the conduct of international relations” is a matter for the executive, rather than the courts, and that it would be unnecessary to decide whether there was a “significant risk” that the carve-out could facilitate crimes.
They added: “The grave risk to life in the ongoing military operations in the Gaza Strip is not created by the F-35 carve-out, and would not be removed by suspension of the export from the UK of F-35 parts into the F-35 programme.”
The High Court was previously told that the decision to “carve out” licences related to F-35 components followed advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the “whole F-35 programme” and have a “profound impact on international peace and security”.
The F-35 programme is an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool.
The two judges later said they agreed with barristers for the DBT, who said it was not possible for the UK to “unilaterally” ensure that UK-made parts did not reach Israel.
They said: “In short, the Secretary of State reasonably concluded that there was no realistic possibility of persuading all other partner nations that F-35 exports to Israel should be suspended.”
“Accordingly he was faced with the blunt choice of accepting the F-35 carve-out or withdrawing from the F-35 Programme and accepting all the defence and diplomatic consequences which would ensue,” they added.
During the court case, the UK Government was called out for having its lawyers argue that the evidence "does not support a finding of genocide" in Gaza, despite Labour ministers publicly claiming that it was not for them to make a determination of genocide.
The International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu for alleged crimes against humanity, and the International Court of Justice has said there is a plausible risk that Palestinians' right to be protected from genocide is at risk.
Responding to the High Court ruling, Dr Halima Begum, Oxfam GB's chief executive, said it was both "surprising and deeply disappointing".
"The court and the Government have both acknowledged that UK arms are at risk of being used in breaches of international humanitarian law in Gaza, yet prioritise the supply chains of fighter jets over the lives of Palestinians," she said.
"It is unconscionable that the Government would continue to licence the sale of components for F-35 jets knowing that they are used to deliberately attack civilians in Gaza and destroy their means of survival, including vital water supplies.
“There can be no excuse for the UK Government’s continued complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity. The UK Government should do what is morally right and immediately suspend all arms sales to Israel."
Ahead of the judgment, Global Legal Action Network (Glan), which supported the Al-Haq challenge said: "Whatever today's judgement, the UK Government must act to prevent genocide, not enable it."
