NGO loses bid to block U.K. export of military equipment to Israel
Israel has used the jets to devastating effect in its bombardment of Gaza.
Both sides have been accused of atrocities during a conflict that has killed tens of thousands -- the vast majority of them Palestinian civilians, according to figures the United Nations deems reliable.
The U.K. government suspended some export licences for military equipment after concluding there was a risk Israel could be breaching international humanitarian law but made an exemption for some parts for Lockheed Martin F-35 stealth jets.
In its claim to the High Court, rights group Al-Haq called for a judicial review, saying the 'carve out' was unlawful and alleging the government had misunderstood the applicable rules of international law.
It was supported by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, Oxfam and others in its case.
Judges Stephen Males and Karen Steyn said they 'reject all' of the grounds for challenging the government's decision.
The case was not about 'whether the U.K. should supply arms or other military equipment to Israel', said the judges.
Rather, the case was concerned with 'whether it is open to the court to rule that the U.K. must withdraw from a specific multilateral defence collaboration' because of the prospect that some U.K. manufactured components may be used by Israel in the Gaza war in actions that could break international humanitarian law.
'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,' said the judges.
'Once the true nature of the issue is identified, it is clear that the claim must fail. Accordingly, permission to bring a judicial review claim is refused,' they added.
Shawan Jabarin, General Director of Al-Haq, said in a statement issued to AFP: 'By exposing serious government failings in facilitating international crimes against Palestinians through its arms exports, civil society and human rights organisations have achieved a crucial breakthrough.
'We will continue to persevere in the U.K. and beyond until governments are held accountable. Israel's impunity is challenged and justice for the Palestinian people is realised,' he added.
'Loophole'
The U.K. contributes components to an international defence programme that produces and maintains the F-35s.
Defence Secretary John Healey argued a suspension would impact the 'whole F-35 programme' and have a 'profound impact on international peace and security'.
Lawyers for Al-Haq said the government had known there was a 'clear risk' Israel would use the jet parts to commit violations of international law.
But government lawyer James Eadie said the court was not placed to rule on the legality of Israel's actions, and that attempting to do so could have a 'potentially deleterious' effect on 'foreign relations with a friendly state, namely Israel'.
In September 2024, the new Labour government announced it was suspending around 30 of 350 export licences following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law.
But the partial ban did not cover British-made F-35 parts, which include refuelling probes, laser targeting systems, tyres and ejector seats, according to Oxfam.
Mr. Healey has previously said suspending F-35 licences would 'undermine U.S. confidence in the U.K. and NATO' but lawyers for Al-Haq have described the exemption as a 'loophole'.
U.K.-based NGO Campaign Against Arms Trade has said that licencing figures showed the government had made a 'shocking increase in military exports to Israel' in the months after its September 2024 announcement of partial suspensions.
It said the figures showed the U.K. approved £127.6 million ($170 million) in military equipment to Israel in single-issue licences from October to December 2024, saying this was more than for the period from 2020 to 2023 combined.
Most of the licences were for military radars, components and software, as well as targeting equipment, according to the NGO, which was involved in the case against the government.
Israel launched war on Gaza after an attack by militants from Palestinian group Hamas on October 7, 2023, which resulted in the deaths of 1,219 people, mostly civilians, according to an AFP tally based on Israeli official figures.
Israel's retaliatory campaign has killed at least 56,500 people in Gaza, an occupied Palestinian territory, most of them civilians, according to the territory's health ministry.
The U.N. considers these figures to be reliable.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
29 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Rap-punk duo Bob Vylan says it's being targeted for speaking up about Gaza at Glastonbury
Rap-punk duo Bob Vylan on Tuesday (July 1, 2025) rejected claims of anti-semitism over onstage comments at the Glastonbury Festival that triggered a police investigation and sparked criticism from politicians, the BBC and festival organisers. The band said in a statement that it was being 'targeted for speaking up' about the war in Gaza. Police are investigating whether a crime was committed when frontman Bob Vylan led the audience in chants of 'Death to the IDF' — the Israel Defense Forces — during the band's set at the festival in southwest England on Saturday. The British government called the chants 'appalling hate speech' and the BBC said it regretted livestreaming the 'antisemitic sentiments.' U.S. authorities revoked the musicians' visas. Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza has inflamed tensions around the world, triggering pro-Palestinian protests in many capitals and on college campuses. Israel and some supporters have described the protests as antisemitic, while critics say Israel uses such descriptions to silence opponents. In a statement on Instagram, Bob Vylan said: 'We are not for the death of jews, arabs or any other race or group of people. We are for the dismantling of a violent military machine. … A machine that has destroyed much of Gaza.' Alleging that 'we are a distraction from the story,' the duo added: 'We are being targeted for speaking up.' The BBC is under pressure to explain why it did not cut the feed of the performance after the anti-IDF chants. Britain's Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis said 'the airing of vile Jew-hatred' by the BBC was a moment of 'national shame.' 'It should trouble all decent people that now, one need only couch their outright incitement to violence and hatred as edgy political commentary, for ordinary people to not only fail to see it for what it is, but also to cheer it, chant it and celebrate it,' he wrote on X. Avon and Somerset Police said it is investigating Bob Vylan's performance, along with that by Irish-language hip-hop trio Kneecap, whose pro-Palestinian stance has also attracted controversy. Kneecap member Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh has been charged under Britain's Terrorism Act with supporting a proscribed organization for allegedly waving a Hezbollah flag at a concert in London last year. Since the war began in October 2023 with a Hamas attack on Israel that killed some 1,200 people, Israel has killed more than 56,000 people in Gaza, according to the health ministry in the Hamas-run territory.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
US visa: DHS' proposal to limit student visas to fixed periods of stay under review
A controversial visa rule that could upend the stay of international students in the US is under review. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed replacing the current flexible student visa system with a fixed period of stay for students. Donald Trump's administration seeks to change student visa tenure to fixed period The decision has sparked concern among legal experts and educational institutions. The proposal has reportedly been sent to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), a key step before publication in the Federal Register, per a TOI report. Once published, a comment period usually follows. However, immigration experts warn that the rule may be rushed through as an interim final rule, making it immediately enforceable What the new rule could mean? Currently, international students are admitted for the 'duration of status' - as long as they maintain full-time enrolment. Under the proposed change, students would receive visas with a fixed expiry date, forcing them to apply for extensions periodically. 'This will create unnecessary delays, financial burden and legal uncertainty. It will add months of processing for even routine extensions,' Rajiv S. Khanna, managing attorney at told the outlet. Mitch Wexler, Senior Counsel at Fragomen, explained that this change would also impact how 'unlawful presence' is calculated. If a student stays beyond their visa's expiry date, they could face serious immigration penalties - even without a formal ruling from USCIS or an immigration judge, per the outlet. ALSO READ: 'Those in US illegally or commit visa fraud will be held responsible': Embassy in India Past proposals and current fears The Trump administration introduced a similar rule in 2020, which never got final approval. With Indian students making up the largest group of international students in the US, over 4.2 lakh in 2024, this policy could have major repercussions, per the outlet. Overstaying is often cited as a reason for stricter rules, yet data shows the overstay rate for students and exchange visitors was just 3.6% in 2023. What lies ahead? The exact visa tenure will only become clear when the rule is published. Until then, international students, already dealing with sudden SEVIS terminations and revoked F-1 visas, are once again left in limbo. Many in the academic world argue that change will do more harm than good, both to students and to the US education system. FAQs Q1. What is the proposed visa rule change for international students? A1. DHS proposes replacing 'duration of status' with a fixed period of stay, requiring regular extensions. Q2. Has this rule been proposed before? A2. Yes, a similar rule was introduced by the Trump administration in 2020, but wasn't finalised. Q3. What happens if a student overstays under the new rule? A3. Unlawful presence could begin after the visa's end date, potentially leading to long-term reentry bans. Q4. How would this affect Indian students? A4. With Indians being the largest group of international students in the US, the impact could be significant.
The Hindu
an hour ago
- The Hindu
A triangular dynamic in South Asia's power politics
In the complex interplay of great power politics in South Asia, the triangular relationship between the United States, India and Pakistan reveals a story. It is one about enduring strategic necessity as much as it is about the contest of political ideologies, national interests and historical legacies. United States President Donald Trump's recent lunch with Pakistan's Army Chief, Field Marshal Asim Munir — a deliberate overture laden with both symbolism and nostalgia — resurrects the ghosts of Cold War realpolitik. Mr. Trump's repeated claims, despite India's persistent denials, of having brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan, using trade as a lever, alongwith his high-profile interaction with the Pakistan Army chief at the White House signals an American eagerness to revert to a diplomacy of shortcuts. The Trump administration's transactional view of diplomacy, privileging deals over doctrines, has led to a turnaround in U.S.-Pakistan relations, casting a dark shadow over the delicate trust meticulously built through decades of U.S.-India counterterrorism cooperation as well as strategic convergence on China — a feat often regarded as one of the most creditable episodes of American diplomacy after the end of the Cold War. America's pronounced shift Mr. Trump's previous tenure as President was marked by an unusually blunt censure of Pakistan's notorious double-game of a Machiavellian policy of cooperating with western countries in counterterrorism, while simultaneously supporting terror outfits that serve its regional interests. This stance had struck a chord with New Delhi's unyielding approach toward terrorism, buttressing an already blooming 'natural partnership' with Washington. Yet, in the Trump administration's second tenure, a perceptible pivot has taken shape. Very early on, the Trump White House reopened channels of security assistance to Pakistan, notably authorising $397 million to sustain Islamabad's F-16 fleet – ostensibly for counter-terrorism purposes. Public acknowledgments from top American military officials, terming Pakistan as a 'phenomenal partner' together with Mr. Trump's own gestures of gratitude toward Pakistan's cooperation in counter-terror operations, reveal an unmistakable recalibration that privileges immediate strategic utility and transactional gains over previously cultivated long-term vision of bilateral relationship. By lauding Pakistan's knowledge of Iran as 'better than most', Mr. Trump has hinted at something far more combustible — that Pakistan's military could become a potential asset in navigating the volatile theatre of Iran-Israel conflict. This American shift has naturally caused concern in New Delhi as it could prove a serious impediment to India's aspirations for a principled partnership with the Trump-led White House. The U.S., the self-styled custodian of a liberal international order that India has also sought to embrace, now appears to treat Pakistan not as a terror-permissive and nuclear-armed outcaste state, but as a strategic interlocutor deserving engagement. The recalibration is supported by multiple factors: economic incentives, personal rapport with Pakistan's military leadership, and America's continuing desire to retain leverage in Afghanistan, and the broader region surrounding China. For Pakistan, it represents a critical opportunity to retrieve lost diplomatic space and rehabilitate its tainted global image, though domestic political currents inject ambiguity into Islamabad's willingness to fully embrace cooperation with Washington. India's doctrinal departure Against this backdrop, the events of late April and early May have concretised the volatility inherent in South Asia's security architecture. The devastating terror attack in Pahalgam unleashed a decisive Indian military response. India's 'Operation Sindoor' marked a doctrinal departure from the long-standing policy of strategic restraint. Prime Minister Narendra Modi's declaration of a 'new normal' has signalled a readiness to transcend previous thresholds, blending kinetic military retaliation with diplomatic campaign with the intent of isolating Pakistan globally and imposing accountability on the state apparatus that enables terrorist groups aligned against India. Mr. Modi's depiction of the ceasefire as a mere pause highlights India's broader aim to alter the calculus of Pakistan's hostility, even as Beijing's close ties with Islamabad and adversarial posture toward New Delhi amplify apprehensions of a two-front confrontation. On the other hand, Pakistan has intensified its dual-track strategy that seeks to combine military posturing with diplomatic engagement with the U.S. with the aim of reviving international attention on the Kashmir issue. The unprecedented promotion of Asim Munir to the rank of field marshal also marks a consolidation of military primacy in Pakistan's national security framework. This entrenchment of a 'hard state' doctrine, characterised by centralised military authority which remains fanatically resistant to civilian oversight, underscores Rawalpindi's determination to project unbending strength amid multiple internal and external pressures. Simultaneously, Pakistan is attempting to capitalise on its geopolitical location and diplomatic slyness to maintain its indispensability in America's current strategic calculations. Islamabad's outreach to Washington, which is reflected in trade negotiations, concessions over rare earth minerals, and innovative economic partnerships entwined with American business interests, suggests a cunning charm offensive to sustain international attention and economic lifelines. It is a strategy that perhaps recognises its own limitations in raw military power and economic scale but leverages the geographic centrality and personal diplomacy to maintain geopolitical relevance. The U.S.'s role in this volatile equation is characterised by a deliberate ambivalence that reflects the complexity of its competing priorities. Washington today seems to have become preoccupied to the point of obsession with tariff and trade, implying that India's role in the Indo-Pacific attracts proportionately less attention than in the past, even though the Quad Foreign Ministers held their meeting in Washington on July 1. New Delhi's persistent rejection of any third-party mediation in Kashmir underscores its determination to keep its core security issues tightly within its own sovereign domain. On the contrary, a Beijing-aligned Pakistan is desperate to embrace American engagement, perceiving it as a means to keep Kashmir from fading into diplomatic obscurity and to counterbalance India's manoeuvring space. However, any American effort to 'hyphenate' New Delhi and Islamabad would run counter to India's vision of itself as a rising global power, while undermining bipartisan consensus to deepen ties with the U.S. What drives Pakistan's relevance Pakistan's continued relevance in American foreign policy seems to be driven by immutable facts of geography as well as carefully honed craft of personal diplomacy, giving its military leadership an inflated sense of purpose and power. Situated at the crossroads of South Asia, Central and West Asia, and bordering Iran, Afghanistan and China, there are certain quarters in Washington prone to the view that Pakistan is an indispensable linchpin to America's regional strategy, particularly in Afghanistan and Iran where its logistical and intelligence roles are still critical. This geographic leverage likely magnifies Pakistan's diplomatic voice in Washington, reinforcing a perception in Rawalpindi that it could help Pakistan counter India's superior economic and demographic credentials. Personal rapport in diplomatic corridors often translates into material and political support, ensuring Pakistan's endurance as a contradictory, yet 'phenomenal' partner. As enduring strategic sympathy for India becomes hostage to the shifting sands of personality-driven politics in the U.S., and the 'friend' in the U.S.-Pakistan frenemy dynamic gaining the upper hand, a geopolitically conscious Washington must walk a delicate tightrope. Each party seeks to instrumentalise the U.S. to its own ends, while American policy oscillates between idealism, realism and transactionalism. Vinay Kaura is Assistant Professor in the Department of International Affairs and Security Studies at the Sardar Patel University of Police, Security and Criminal Justice, Rajasthan, and Non-Resident Fellow, Institute of South Asian Studies, National University of Singapore
