LONDON

Leading human rights organizations on Monday sharply criticized a UK high court ruling that declined to block British arms exports to Israel amid mounting evidence of atrocity crimes in Gaza.

The UK High Court on Monday refused permission for a landmark judicial review brought by Palestinian human rights group Al-Haq, which sought to challenge the UK’s continued exports of F-35 fighter jet components that are ultimately used by Israel in its genocidal campaign in Gaza.

In their ruling, Lord Justice Males and Justice Steyn concluded that the so-called “F-35 carve-out” – a policy exception allowing the UK to continue exporting parts for the multinational F-35 combat aircraft program despite suspending some other military export licenses related to the Gaza conflict – was lawful and could not be overturned by the courts.

The claim centered on the UK’s legal obligations under international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, the Arms Trade Treaty, and the Genocide Convention.

Al-Haq, backed by Oxfam, Amnesty International UK, and Human Rights Watch, argued that the carve-out contravened these obligations, given the risk that F-35 components could be used in violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.  

'Sad day for justice'

Yasmine Ahmed, executive director of Human Rights Watch UK, called the decision "a sad day for justice, accountability, and international law — but mostly for the Palestinian people."

Speaking shortly after the ruling, Ahmed said the court had "failed to reflect on the security of the Palestinian people to be free from acts of genocide and atrocities."

She emphasized that the court’s judgment placed the responsibility squarely back on the UK Parliament.

"The court today has invited Parliament to now hold the executive to account, to ask questions, and to ensure that the government is complying with their international obligations," she said.

"The facts on the ground are clear — the government is not complying with its duty to prevent genocide and its obligations under the Arms Trade Treaty." 

Ahmed affirmed that this ruling marked not an end, but a new chapter in the campaign for Palestinian rights.

“Today is the beginning of the fight that we will all continue,” she stated.

Sacha Deshmukh, CEO of Amnesty International UK, echoed those concerns, expressing disappointment with the judgment.

He said the court had made it clear that its limited authority does not relieve the UK executive or Parliament from their legal responsibilities.

"The UK has a clear legal obligation to help prevent and punish genocide," Deshmukh stated. "Yet it continues to authorize the export of weapons to Israel, despite the clear risks that these weapons are being used to commit genocide."

He described the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Gaza in stark terms: “Entire Palestinian families are being wiped out in their homes. Civilians are being targeted in what should be safe spaces. Gaza’s medical system has been systematically dismantled, its water and sanitation infrastructure destroyed, and its population subjected to starvation and siege.”

Over a million people have been forcibly displaced in Gaza, he noted, “with no safe place to go.”

The court’s ruling comes amid growing international scrutiny over the UK's continued arms trade with Israel, as human rights groups warn of grave breaches of international law and urge urgent government action.

Despite international calls for a ceasefire, the Israeli army has killed more than 56,500 Palestinians in a deadly onslaught in the Gaza Strip since October 2023.

Last November, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Gaza.

Israel also faces a genocide case at the International Court of Justice for its war on the enclave.