A Palestinian human rights group has lost a High Court legal challenge against the UK Government over the export of fighter jet components to Israel.
Al-Haq began legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing the sale of parts for F-35 fighter jets.
In September, the UK government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the Gaza war.
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”.
The DBT was defending the challenge, with its barristers telling a four-day hearing in London that the carve-out is “consistent with the rules of international law” and that suspending the licences would negatively impact a wider international programme.
In a 72-page ruling on Monday, Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn said the case was about a “much more focused issue” than the carve-out itself.
The judges continued: “That issue is whether it is open to the court to rule that the UK must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration which is reasonably regarded by the responsible ministers as vital to the defence of the UK and to international peace and security, because of the prospect that some UK manufactured components will or may ultimately be supplied to Israel, and may be used in the commission of a serious violation of international humanitarian law in the conflict in Gaza.
“Under our constitution that acutely sensitive and political issue is a matter for the executive which is democratically accountable to Parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not for the courts.”
Shawan Jabarin, general director of Al-Haq, said despite the judgment going against them, the case has succeeded in "exposing serious government failings in facilitating international crimes against Palestinians through its arms exports".
"Despite the outcome of today, this case has centred the voice of the Palestinian people and has rallied significant public support, and it is just the start," said Mr Jabarin.
"We will continue to persevere in the UK and beyond until governments are held accountable, Israel's impunity is challenged and justice for the Palestinian people is realised."
Jennine Walker, a lawyer at the Global Legal Action Network which supported Al-Haq's case, said outside the Royal Courts of Justice in London: "We are currently analysing the judgment for grounds of appeal.
"This is a regrettable setback after such a long battle for Al-Haq and all the Palestinians who have been following the case. However, this is not the end."
At an earlier hearing at the Royal Courts of Justice, Raza Husain KC, for Al-Haq, said the case came “against the backdrop of human calamity” in Gaza, describing the conflict as a “live-streamed genocide”.
In written submissions, he said the UK government misunderstood relevant parts of the Geneva Conventions when there was a clear risk that the parts might be used to commit or facilitate violations of international humanitarian law by Israel.
F-35s are part of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool.
An earlier hearing in the case was 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 affect the “whole F-35 programme” and have a “profound impact on international peace and security”.
In written submissions for the May hearing, Sir James Eadie KC, for the UK government, said that this “provided justification to take exceptional measures to avoid these impacts and was consistent with the UK's domestic and international legal obligations”.
