Palestinian NGO takes the British Government to court

The Palestinian human rights organization Al-Haq started proceedings this past month at the High Court against three British government ministers over the UK's support of Israel during the recent Gaza war.

The legal proceedings are against David Milliband, Foreign Secretary, John Hutton, Defence Secretary, and Peter Mandelson, Business Secretary for putting the government in breach of international law.

Al-Haq say that the UK has not rendered aid to Gaza and "has positively assisted Israel in its actions in Gaza". They point to the continued arms sales to Israel; the continued preferential trade agreements; and the government's inaction in sanctioning or censoring Israel's actions in Gaza.

If the claim is successful these policies would have to be reversed.

The legal justification being used is paragraph 159 of the International Court of Justice's 2004 advisory opinion on the construction of the wall separating Israel and the West Bank. This states that signatories of the Geneva Convention have an obligation to ensure compliance by Israel with international humanitarian law.

The organisation argues that "if the UK were to meet its international obligations, now Palestinian lives and limbs in Gaza would be saved and there would be a much greater chance of accountability for Israel's actions and a change in the policies of all the key players".

A Foreign Office (FCO) spokesperson responded to the accusations saying that the claims put forwards by Al-Haq's solicitors, Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), are "wholly inept for resolution in domestic legal proceedings."

Photo credit: Kelly Van Der Kwast

Phil Shiner, the PIL solicitor leading the case, sees the government's position as "ten years out of time".

"The facts are that if there is a matter of legality the courts should scrutinise it whether it is the closing of a library or whether it is the UK's actions in respect to Israel," said Shiner.

Al-Haq says that in the first quarter of 2008 total arms exports to Israel approved by the FCO increased to £20m compared to £12m in 2004.

The FCO argues that this increase is due to the approval of one license for "high value naval communications equipment".

"When there is a clear risk that proposed exports might be used for internal repression, or would be used aggressively against another country, a licence will be refused. Any evidence of the IDF methods or tactics during Operation Cast Lead will be taken into account in assessing such risks in considering relevant licence applications," said the spokesperson.

Shiner explains that the reason for taking these actions through a domestic court is that it is a "quick and effective way of bringing the matter to the attention of the judiciary and the attention of the public".

Nonetheless he sees the difficulties in these kinds of proceedings.

"It is a controversial topic but we think the law is absolutely clear and at the very least we believe we are entitled to a full hearing", Shiner said.

Dr James Thring, one of the founders of Legal Action Against the War, an organization that in 2004 led a failed attempt to have Tony Blair and other members of the British government tried in the International Criminal Court for the Iraq war, believes that this case is more likely to succeed.

"The crimes are being identified quickly, there is evidence on the ground of identified generals in the Israeli army that targeted civilians [who were] nowhere near military targets," said Dr Thring.