Palestinian challenges UK's policy on arms exports to Israel

British High Court will consider Bethlehem resident's demand that gov't clarify its criteria regarding arms-related export.

By JONNY PAUL, JPOST CORRESPONDENT IN LONDON
IAF planes 298.88 (photo credit: AP)
IAF planes 298.88
(photo credit: AP)
The British High Court will consider a claim by a Bethlehem resident this week calling for the British government to clarify its criteria regarding arms-related export licensing agreements with Israel. Through the Birmingham-based group, Public Interest Lawyers (PIL), and Al-Haq, a Ramallah-based human rights organization, Saleh Hasan, a Palestinian who lives in Bethlehem, will challenge the British government's decision to grant export licenses for selling weapons to Israel. In particular Hasan will challenge the government's failure to justify granting such licenses when the decision "may carry a life-or-death significance for Palestinians attacked with weapons containing British-supplied parts." According to PIL, the British-supplied parts include components for combat helicopters, aircraft radars, air-to-surface missiles and airborne electronic warfare equipment. PIL also said that special licenses were approved for the sale to Israel of components for military training aircraft, naval radars, naval communications equipment and optical sensors for unmanned air vehicles. The licenses do not include components made by British companies used in US-assembled Apache helicopters and F-16 bombers that are sold to Israel by the US. In a case last November, Hasan called on the UK government to reveal how it satisfies its own criteria that material sold under license agreements are not used "in the commission of human rights abuses." At the hearing, PIL sought a declaration from the High Court that in future dealings with Israel, the British Government would be transparent about their compliance with the UK Export Control Act of 2002, which incorporates the European Union guidelines governing the export of military equipment. The act, they said, prohibits the government from selling arms-related products where there is "a clear risk" they will be used "for internal repression." The court dismissed the claim. Justice Collins said that through the Quadripartite Committee - which is made up of four committees that examine government expenditure, administration and policy on strategic exports - there was a sufficient level of oversight over arms-export licensing at the government level. However in February, the Court of Appeals found there to be strategic questions with regard to High Court's dismissal of the claim and granted the appeal. In an appeal at the High Court scheduled for Wednesday, PIL will argue that the state is under a public law obligation to provide in the public interest the reasons demonstrating how license applications are assessed in compliance with relevant human rights criteria in statutory guidance. "It is critically important that the government follow their own criteria which requires them to be assured that arms exports will not be used against Palestinian civilians," Phil Shiner of PIL said. "The government refuses to say how they have met that test, yet these decisions may be a matter of life-and-death for Palestinian civilians. "If the phrase 'open government' is to mean anything, decisions to allow arms exports to Israel must be reasoned before the public. This is but one aspect of a wider state responsibility that the UK state has for human rights violations perpetrated by the Israeli government in the Occupied Palestinian Territories," he added.