UK Government Says Israel Is Not Committed to Following International Human Rights Law

The Government has stated that it believes Israel is “not committed” to following international human rights law, amid a battle in the High Court this week. 

The claim comes as the West Bank-based Al-Haq NGO continues its legal effort to force the UK Government to halt all exports of F-35 fighter jet components to Israel, as the right-wing Netanyahu Government is accused of using them to commit atrocities in Gaza.  

On 2 September this year, the Trade Secretary suspended dozens of arms export licences which “might be used in carrying out or facilitating Israeli military operations in the current conflict in Gaza”.

But that September decision still allowed some F-35 military jet components to be exported, on the basis that a total suspension could “lead to the consequent disruption for partner aircraft” by military allies – likely triggering a fierce row with the United States, Israel’s biggest military backer.

“[This] would have a profound impact on international peace and security. It would undermine US confidence in the UK and NATO at a critical juncture in our collective history and set back relations. Our adversaries would not wait to take advantage of any perceived weakness, having global ramifications,” the UK Government said in a statement at the time. 

As of 2 September 2024, there were 361 active licences for exports to Israel. Of these, just one in ten (34) export licences were suspended, as Ministers believed they could be used for military operations in Israel’s war in Gaza. Five of those were related to F-35 components, but other F-35 parts were unaffected. 

The decision suggested that UK-sold F-35 parts could still be transferred to Israel indirectly, through the global arms supply chain.

Permitted (‘green’) licences include components for “trainer aircraft, air defence systems, training equipment, IED disposal equipment and many other items which are clearly unrelated to military operations in Gaza,” according to the UK Government. 

Government ‘Independent Adviser’ Who ‘Backs Ban’ on Climate and Palestine Groups has Paid Roles with Defence and Business Lobbyists

The Conservatives’ domestic extremism adviser Lord John Walney is accused of conflicts of interest over a proposed ban of groups such as Palestine Action and Just Stop Oil

Josiah Mortimer

Potential War Crimes

Ministers say they only had to suspend arms export licences to Israel where there is “a clear risk that they might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of [international humanitarian law].”

Strikingly, the Government’s opening statement to the court this week notes that the F-35 “carve out” accepts that there is a “clear risk that F-35 components might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of IHL [International humanitarian law], but determines that in the exceptional circumstances outlined by the Defence Secretary, these exports should nonetheless continue.”

This week the Royal Courts of Justice is considering the lawfulness of the exemption of F-35 fighter jet parts. The case is being led by West Bank human rights group Al-Haq – ‘The Truth’ in Arabic – and supported by Oxfam, Amnesty International UK, Human Rights Watch, and Global Legal Action Network (GLAN). 

The NGOs taking the UK Government on say the ongoing challenge could be expanded to include the “UK Government’s lack of red lines for imposing a full export ban on weapons to Israel”, with fresh, separate legal action being considered.

They believe there is a possibility that selling arms to Israel could have “domestic criminal consequences” for UK politicians and officials, under the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 or the International Criminal Court Act 2001. 

“If the Government did not take this into account, it would mean that the decision to continue transferring F-35s would be unlawful,” a spokesperson for GLAN added.

UK Sanctions on Israeli Settlers are ‘Wholly Insufficient’ – the Violence Should be ‘Treated as Terrorism Rather Than Criminality’

The Foreign Secretary David Lammy is being urged to go much further in response to violence by Israeli settlers

Byline Times Team

Alleged Flaws

Analysts for Al-Haq believe they have exposed several failures in the Government’s decision-making over arms exports to Israel. 

They argue that the UK Government “waited five weeks to act on its own assessment (made on 24 July 2024) that UK weaponry was at risk of being used in serious violations of IHL and that exports should be suspended.”

Between 24 July and 2 September, at least 1,716 Palestinians were killed by Israel in Gaza, according to UNOCHA (the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs). 

And a spokesperson for legal campaigners GLAN said: “In making their latest decision, the Government weighed the harm to civilians in Palestine against the operation of the global F-35 programme; it chose political expediency over the lives of Palestinians. 

“The Government explicitly said: ‘The risk to the UK/US relationship’ was a key factor in deciding to continue with F-35 exports.”

In a court filing this month seen by Byline Times, the UK Government’s lawyers state that September’s decision on arms suspensions came after the Foreign Secretary David Lammy concluded that Israel is “not committed to complying with international humanitarian law”.  

The Government’s International Humanitarian Law Cell’s analysis found that Israel had “committed possible breaches of IHL in relation to humanitarian access and the treatment of detainees”, which contradicted Israel’s statements of being committed to following human rights treaties, likely in terms of failing to adequately protect civilians during hostilities. 

Foreign Secretary David Lammy told the Trade Secretary that there was a clear risk that certain items might be used to commit or facilitate a serious violation of international humanitarian law, and that suspensions of some arms licenses were required under Britain’s arms export rules. 

A further decision on the legality of F-35 licenses will be made by the court in early January when a final, extended hearing date will be set.

‘How the West’s Blind and Unconditional Support for Israel is Leading to a Terrifying Regional War’

At a UN General Assembly, there was enormous sympathy for the Palestinians and strong criticism of Israel’s treatment of them. Wednesday marked the third day of a wave of new strikes on Lebanon

Mel Frykberg

Back and Forth

The Government argues the NGOs’ challenges to the so-called ‘F-35 Carve Out’ should be filed as a separate judicial review. Government lawyers also argue the non-profits’ current legal filing goes against court guidance on length and complexity.

But Al-Haq has accused the Foreign Secretary David Lammy of displaying a “fundamental misunderstanding of the definition of the term ‘genocide’” in comments he made in Parliament on 28 October 2024.

Lammy suggested the term only applies in situations where “millions of people lost their lives in crises such as Rwanda and the Holocaust of the second world war”.

And he claimed that branding Israel’s war in Gaza a genocide “undermines [the] seriousness” of the term. 

Al-Haq’s case already argues that the Government’s “repeated failure to stop arms exports to Israel stems from an incorrect interpretation of its obligation to prevent genocide”. 

Last week at Prime Minister’s Questions, PM Keir Starmer also rejected the idea that Israel’s operations in Gaza constituted a genocide.

Al-Haq is an independent Palestinian non-Governmental human rights organisation based in Ramallah, West Bank. Global Legal Action Network (GLAN) is a UK-based legal non-profit organisation with offices in the UK and Ireland. 

Subscribers Get More from JOSIAH

Josiah Mortimer also writes the On the Ground column, exclusive to the print edition of Byline Times.

So for more from him…

Subscribe to Byline Times