LONDON: Britain's arms export licenses to Israel are coming under increasing scrutiny over claims that: international law was broken in the war. let's gowith court It is set to address divisive issues.
The controversial issue surfaced on Wednesday when the opposition emerged. Labor Party member accused Prime Minister Rishi Sunak “He had the blood of thousands of innocent people on his hands.”
This week protesters confronted delegates outside the London Defense Industry Conference.
Foreign Secretary David Cameron, who is visiting the Middle East, has been criticized for a lack of transparency about his sales support role.
In London, a coalition of legal advocacy groups asked the High Court to expedite a judicial review of the British government's decision to continue selling military parts and weapons to Israel.
The UK's strategic licensing criteria state that weapons should not be exported if there is a clear risk that they could be used to breach international humanitarian law.
The court's claimants, led by Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq and including the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), claim the government is ignoring its own rules in the Gaza conflict.
“This case is a test of the credibility of the country's arms control system, including the role of the courts in monitoring it,” Dearbhla Minogue, senior lawyer at GLAN, told AFP.
“International humanitarian law is designed to balance human and military needs, and the government’s approach directs the carriage and horse to achieve those basic goals.”
– Inconclusive –
The coalition said Britain has approved more than 487 million pounds ($621 million) worth of arms sales under so-called single-issue licenses since 2015, and companies have approved more exports under open licenses.
This includes donating tens of millions of pounds worth of key equipment to the F-35 fighter jets built in the US and sold to Israel.
Figures for the period since October 7, when Hamas launched an unprecedented attack on Israel and Israeli forces responded with merciless bombing in the Gaza Strip, have not yet been released.
The British lawsuit comes after a Dutch court ruled last month that the Netherlands can continue to supply F-35 parts to Israel and dismissed a lawsuit brought by human rights groups.
The Hague court said the supply of parts was primarily a political decision that judges should not interfere with.
Documents submitted by government lawyers in the London case this month highlight internal deliberations over the licenses and how Israel conducts its war against Hamas.
The January 12 summary showed that Foreign Office officials advising on the permits had “serious concerns” about aspects of Israel's military operations.
The report said officials “have not been able to make a final judgment on whether Israel has complied with international humanitarian law to date.”
– 'Satisfied' –
The 22-page legal filing reveals that International Trade Minister Kemi Badenoch, who has ultimate responsibility for licences, decided on December 18 not to suspend or revoke any licenses.
Instead, she decided to maintain a “cautious review.”
This was in line with recommendations made six days earlier by former Prime Minister Cameron, who returned to government as Britain's top diplomat in mid-November.
According to the legal submission, he was “satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that Israel had committed to comply with humanitarian law.”
Minogue was shocked by the assessment.
He added, “The British defense team made it clear that rather than looking at all the evidence objectively, they went to the perpetrators, asked them if they were violating international law, and took their word for it.”
Meanwhile, Cameron was accused of evasion for failing to disclose his advice and Foreign Office concerns when questioned by lawmakers on January 9.
Asked whether government lawyers shared the assessment that Israel had violated international law in Gaza, he seemed unconvinced.
“I can’t remember every single piece of paper that’s put in front of me. I see it all,” Cameron said.
He eventually answered “no,” before adding, “It’s not really a yes or no answer.”
The controversial issue surfaced on Wednesday when the opposition emerged. Labor Party member accused Prime Minister Rishi Sunak “He had the blood of thousands of innocent people on his hands.”
This week protesters confronted delegates outside the London Defense Industry Conference.
Foreign Secretary David Cameron, who is visiting the Middle East, has been criticized for a lack of transparency about his sales support role.
In London, a coalition of legal advocacy groups asked the High Court to expedite a judicial review of the British government's decision to continue selling military parts and weapons to Israel.
The UK's strategic licensing criteria state that weapons should not be exported if there is a clear risk that they could be used to breach international humanitarian law.
The court's claimants, led by Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq and including the Global Legal Action Network (GLAN), claim the government is ignoring its own rules in the Gaza conflict.
“This case is a test of the credibility of the country's arms control system, including the role of the courts in monitoring it,” Dearbhla Minogue, senior lawyer at GLAN, told AFP.
“International humanitarian law is designed to balance human and military needs, and the government’s approach directs the carriage and horse to achieve those basic goals.”
– Inconclusive –
The coalition said Britain has approved more than 487 million pounds ($621 million) worth of arms sales under so-called single-issue licenses since 2015, and companies have approved more exports under open licenses.
This includes donating tens of millions of pounds worth of key equipment to the F-35 fighter jets built in the US and sold to Israel.
Figures for the period since October 7, when Hamas launched an unprecedented attack on Israel and Israeli forces responded with merciless bombing in the Gaza Strip, have not yet been released.
The British lawsuit comes after a Dutch court ruled last month that the Netherlands can continue to supply F-35 parts to Israel and dismissed a lawsuit brought by human rights groups.
The Hague court said the supply of parts was primarily a political decision that judges should not interfere with.
Documents submitted by government lawyers in the London case this month highlight internal deliberations over the licenses and how Israel conducts its war against Hamas.
The January 12 summary showed that Foreign Office officials advising on the permits had “serious concerns” about aspects of Israel's military operations.
The report said officials “have not been able to make a final judgment on whether Israel has complied with international humanitarian law to date.”
– 'Satisfied' –
The 22-page legal filing reveals that International Trade Minister Kemi Badenoch, who has ultimate responsibility for licences, decided on December 18 not to suspend or revoke any licenses.
Instead, she decided to maintain a “cautious review.”
This was in line with recommendations made six days earlier by former Prime Minister Cameron, who returned to government as Britain's top diplomat in mid-November.
According to the legal submission, he was “satisfied that there was sufficient evidence to support the finding that Israel had committed to comply with humanitarian law.”
Minogue was shocked by the assessment.
He added, “The British defense team made it clear that rather than looking at all the evidence objectively, they went to the perpetrators, asked them if they were violating international law, and took their word for it.”
Meanwhile, Cameron was accused of evasion for failing to disclose his advice and Foreign Office concerns when questioned by lawmakers on January 9.
Asked whether government lawyers shared the assessment that Israel had violated international law in Gaza, he seemed unconvinced.
“I can’t remember every single piece of paper that’s put in front of me. I see it all,” Cameron said.
He eventually answered “no,” before adding, “It’s not really a yes or no answer.”