IMAGE: UK High Court judges Lord Justice Males (Right) and Mrs Justice Karen Steyn (Left)
On Monday, the High Court in London determined that Britain’s decision to allow the export of parts for F-35 fighter jets to Israel was lawful, despite recognising the potential for these components to be used in ways that could breach international humanitarian law in Gaza.Â
DOCUMENT: Al-Haq -v- Secretary of State for Business and Trade – Judgment approved by the High Court – Case number: AC-2023-LON-003634 (Source: UK Courts and Tribunals Judicary)
Al-Haq-v-Secretary-of-State-for-Business-and-Trade
Al-Haq, an independent Palestinian non-governmental human rights organisation based in Ramallah, in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, has filed a lawsuit against the UK’s Department for Business and Trade over its decision to exempt F-35 components from a halt on certain arms export licenses last year. The UK found that Israel was not complying with international humanitarian law during its military operations, but did not revoke licenses for F-35 parts, which support Israel’s current aircraft. The UK government argued that stopping these licenses would disrupt a global supply chain for the jets, potentially impacting international security and undermining US trust in the UK and NATO. Al-Haq claimed this decision was illegal and violated international law, including the Geneva Convention, but the High Court dismissed its appeal.
In their 72-page ruling, Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn rejected Al-Haq’s legal challenge, asserting:
“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.”
Judges Stephen Males and Karen Steyn emphasised that the case was not centered on whether the UK should supply arms or other military resources to Israel, but rather on whether the court possessed the authority to rule that Britain ought to withdraw from the international F-35 program, which government officials argue is crucial for both British and global security. Lord Justice highlighted that, under the British constitution, this highly sensitive and political issue falls within the domain of the executive, which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, rather than the judiciary.
The United Kingdom seems to be withholding crucial evidence, including footage and reports that could establish Israel’s utmost contempt for International Humanitarian Law. This convenient dogging practice allows the justice and the Government to claim ignorance of the facts, whilst keeping the Gaza genocide alive and well fed with F-35 fighter jet parts made in Britain. Declassified UK has the story…
IMAGE: Â Israeli F-35I with four GBU-31s in the foreground (Source: IAF)
John McEvoy reports for DECLASSIFIED UK…
UK withheld evidence from Court in Israel arms export case
Judges say Britain can supply fighter jet parts to Israel, but the case has exposed how the government conceals its own evidence of Gaza war crimes.
- UK ignored its own spy footage when assessing Israel’s compliance with international law
- Key document withheld from court on Israel’s shooting of minors
- Foreign Office paid £715,000 for “independent” analysis on Gaza
- Firm contracted by Foreign Office founded by former UK embassy official in Tel Aviv
Judges ruled this morning that Britain’s decision to allow F-35 fighter jet parts to be sent to Israel was lawful, despite concerns about violations of international humanitarian law.
The 72-page ruling came in response to a landmark legal challenge brought by Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq with support from the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), Oxfam, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch. The claimants argued in court that Britain’s provision of fighter jet components to global pools which supply Israel was in breach of its international and domestic legal obligations. The UK government’s lawyers said the F-35 programme was of vital importance to national security, and it would constitute a threat to “international peace” should Britain withdraw from it.
While Israel’s conduct in Gaza could “in principle satisfy the physical component of genocide”, the lawyers accepted in court, it was unknowable whether these “actions are motivated by genocidal intent”.
Genocidal statements by Israeli ministers were dismissed as broadly irrelevant, while assurances of commitment to international humanitarian law (IHL) were treated as reliable. Israel’s national security minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and finance minister Bezalel Smotrich were deemed to have “limited influence” over Benjamin Netanyahu’s government, though they have since been sanctioned by Britain for “repeated incitements of violence against Palestinian communities”.
High court judges Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn found in favour of the government, saying the courts “should not intervene in a sensitive political issue that was best left to ministers and parliament”.
A spokesperson for Amnesty UK responded: “Despite overwhelming evidence they risk fuelling genocide in Gaza, the High Court says it can’t intervene in the government’s decision to keep supplying F-35 fighter jet parts to Israel.
“The judgment doesn’t change the facts on the ground or the UK’s duty to help prevent genocide. The government must end all arms transfers to Israel immediately”.
Spy flights
At a hearing earlier this year attended by Declassified, one of the government’s lawyers declared: “This is not our war.”
This meant, he argued, that the UK government could only know whether Israeli troops are committing war crimes in Gaza if they had access to Israeli intelligence about each operation. If Israel doesn’t hand over the information, the UK government effectively presumes innocence. This is despite the British military having compiled its own unique archive of the conflict.
The Royal Air Force (RAF) has been sending spy flights over Gaza to gather intelligence for Israel since December 2023, collecting thousands of hours of footage of events on the ground. Remarkably, the Foreign Office team, which reviews Israel’s compliance with International Humanitarian Law (known as the IHLCAP cell) has seemingly not reviewed or even requested the RAF’s spy footage.
In December 2024, the Foreign Office’s director for defence and international security, Stephen Lillie, told a parliamentary committee: “To the best of my knowledge, we have not asked for that information from RAF flights”. Last month, Zarah Sultana MP asked the Foreign Office once again whether the IHLCAP Cell has requested access to the surveillance footage. Foreign Minister Hamish Falconer dodged the question, indicating that his department is still ignoring the government’s own evidence of Israeli atrocities.
“Our IHL assessments include information from a wide range of sources… including the UN, non-governmental organisations, media and organisations on the ground”, Falconer said, making no reference to spy flights. The MoD, moreover, is refusing to disclose to parliament how the footage is stored and whether any of it has been deleted, destroyed, or lost. A spokesperson for the department said earlier this month: “I cannot comment on detailed intelligence matters nor disclose details of MoD internal policies for the storage and retention of operational intelligence”.
Centre for Information Resilience
Instead of using the RAF surveillance footage, the Foreign Office contracted a “third-party” organisation named the Centre for Information Resilience (CIR) to provide analysis on Israel’s war conduct in Gaza.
The government’s lawyers argued in court that this was necessary because of the lack of access to information on the ground in Gaza, gliding over the issue of spy flights.
“Access to Gaza remains significantly restricted; the ongoing conduct of hostilities makes verification of information in a timely manner particularly challenging”, they said.
Since January 2024, the Foreign Office has paid £715,000 to CIR for “work on the Middle East”. This involves producing incident reports on possible human rights violations in Gaza, which are then fed into the Foreign Office’s IHLCAP Cell. CIR claims it is “an independent, non-profit social enterprise dedicated to countering disinformation [and] exposing human rights abuses”. The high court judges also accepted that CIR is an “independent” organisation. But the organisation’s main funders include the UK, US, and Australian governments, and its co-founders Ross Burley and Adam Rutland are closely linked to the Foreign Office.
Burley was the press officer at the British Embassy in Tel Aviv between 2012 and 2014. He has also served in London and Washington and led “several of the UK Government’s counter-disinformation programmes” between 2017 and 2020.
Rutland worked for 14 years in the Foreign Office, including in its Communications and Engagement Department and as a diplomat in Jakarta, Indonesia.
A spokesperson for CIR told Declassified: “CIR is an independent, non-profit organisation that uses open-source methods to collect, verify, and investigate human rights abuses and potential violations of international law. Our work is impartial, transparent, and guided solely by rigorous methodology, which is outlined in detail on our website.”
Withholding evidence
Using data from CIR and elsewhere, the Foreign Office’s IHL Cell reviewed over 400 incidents in Gaza but found only one attack to be a “possible” breach of IHL by Israel. That was Israel’s airstrike on a World Central Kitchen (WCK) convoy, which killed seven international aid workers, including three Britons.
The other 412 incidents were judged to be “inconclusive”. As such, the Foreign Office has still not decided whether Israel is committed to complying with IHL in its general war conduct.
“We have not been able to reach a determination in relation to the conduct of hostilities due to the lack of sufficient, verifiable evidence”, Falconer told parliament earlier this month.
But according to GLAN, the Foreign Office’s methodology is fundamentally flawed because it operates on an “incident-by-incident basis, rather than looking at overall patterns”.
Those patterns would include “repeated attacks on hospitals and objects indispensable to the survival of the population…, the repeated mass population transfer orders issued by Israel…, and the sheer scale of destruction” in Gaza.
Remarkably, the UK government also refused to submit one of CIR’s research reports on “Long-Range Shootings or Shootings of Minors” to the court despite “a duty to disclose and an explicit request made for its disclosure”. The UK government is refusing to explain why the report was withheld – and it won’t publish it.
CIR’s spokesperson did not clarify whether the organisation was planning to publish the report or share it with Declassified. They said the body of evidence that they have collated “is an invaluable resource for justice and accountability mechanisms…
“CIR does not provide legal advice or make legal determinations on the status of those events under international law. Given the significant reporting restrictions and access challenges in this conflict, an open-source investigation is essential for independent monitoring and tracking of events.
“CIR has also supported international media outlets by assisting with the verification of incidents, contributing to wider efforts to investigate allegations of potential war crimes”.
See more news from DECLASSIFIED UK
READ MORE UK NEWS AT:Â 21st CENTURY WIRE UK FILES
SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV
VISIT OURÂ TELEGRAM CHANNEL
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Global Affairs
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://21stcenturywire.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
