Judges to rule on Palestinian group's legal action over Israel military exports
Al-Haq is taking legal action against the Department for Business and Trade (DBT) over its decision to continue licensing exports of components for F-35 fighter jets.
In September last year, the Government suspended export licences for weapons and military equipment following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the conflict.
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 is 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.
Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn are due to hand down their ruling at 10.30am on Monday.
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn addressed demonstrators before the hearing began (Ben Whitley/PA)
At the 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 that the 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 impact 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 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'.
He continued that some of Al-Haq's criticisms 'are not based on a balanced appreciation of the facts' and did not consider 'the true depth and range of the information-gathering and analysis' by the Government when it made the decision.
Charities Oxfam and Amnesty International, as well as Human Rights Watch, all intervened in the case.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
40 minutes ago
- Spectator
On the Israel-Syria border, death is always close
Syria's new president, Ahmed Al-Sharaa, is desperate to stay on the sidelines of the Iran-Israel war. Most middle eastern states have strongly condemned Israel for its surprise attack on Iran, but the Syrian government has been conspicuously silent. Since coming to power in December 2024, Al-Sharaa's forces have confronted Iran-backed militias in many regions of Syria, and moved to curtail Tehran's soft power by expelling Iranian clerics and closing Shia religious centres. The rag-tag collection of Sunni-Islamists, who now form a large part of the Syrian army, have a long list of scores to settle with the Shiites and their main patron. But, simultaneously, Israel has launched hundreds of airstrikes on Syria and significantly expanded its occupation, far beyond the Golan Heights. Damascus has adopted an astoundingly conciliatory stance to Israel in response. Al Sharaa is a highly pragmatic man – he wants to be remembered as the leader who unified Syria and ended its civil war – and so he can't afford to accept Israel's challenge to a fight. Having refused to resist Israeli aggression in any meaningful way, and Israel having made it impossible for Al-Sharaa to establish control south of Damascus, new Iran-backed forces are seizing the opportunity to fill a power vacuum. I recently travelled to the Golan Heights to see for myself. As we drove along the Bravo Line, one of the de-facto borders between Israel and Syria, a local Israeli-Druze man named Yousef directed my attention towards a Syrian village in the buffer zone. 'That's Hader. In 2014, we watched the fighting between [Syrian forces] and Isis there. We used to go near the border with snacks and just watch. That's how safe it was, they wouldn't dare turn their weapons towards Israel,' he said. Majdal Shams sits in the northeastern corner of the Golan Heights – sandwiched between Lebanon and Syria. It was frequently targeted by Hezbollah during the war last year – the site of a horrific rocket attack that killed 8 Druze children on a football pitch. But it hadn't been since October 2023 that rockets were fired from the Syrian side of the border. On the evening of 2 June, for the first time since the fall of the Assad regime, Syrian militants fired two rockets at northern Israel, which landed in an unpopulated area of the southern Golan Heights. A few hours later, an Iran-backed militia named Uli al-Bass (UAB), part of a broader militia network in southern Syria known as The Islamic Resistance Front in Syria (IRFS), claimed responsibility for the attack. In return, the Israeli air force struck weapons facilities and other targets across Syria in the following days. 'We hold the Syrian president directly responsible for every threat and firing at the state of Israel, and the full response will come as soon as possible. We will not allow a return to the reality of 7 October,' said Israeli President Isaac Herzog in a statement on the evening of 2 June. As an Iran-backed militia, UAB is a common enemy of the Syrian and Israeli states. But Israel has forbidden the Syrian government from exercising security control in southern Syria, where Israel has been launching frequent airstrikes, allowing the group to recruit fighters. 'You can't hold Ahmed al-Sharaa 'personally responsible' for the development of new security challenges while simultaneously seeking to weaken Syria & demand its security forces vacate the south entirely. It makes no sense,' Charles Lister, a Syria expert at the Middle East Institute, wrote on X. According to Rob Geist Pinfold, a lecturer in Defence Studies at King's College London, IRFS has been regularly attacking Israeli troops inside Syria since the fall of the Assad regime to galvanise local support. 'This is a tried-and-tested strategy. It was Israel's prolonged occupation of southern Lebanon that gave Hezbollah, with Iranian support, the legitimacy and ability to entrench itself within that country,' he wrote in a May report. He continued: 'A weak Syria government would further allow Iran to re-establish its long-standing networks in that country. Yet Israel is working tirelessly to deliver exactly this scenario.' IDF drone unit seen Kibbutz Merom Golan, on the Syrian border in the northern Golan Heights (Getty Images) There are now five separate lines that separate Israel and Syria, together constituting something approximating a border. People can quibble about which are now relevant or valid. But each line separates a different zone of control or legal status. Only on the opposite side of all five lines do the Israeli and Syrian states both have full security control and internationally-recognised sovereignty. Driving towards Syria from the Israeli side, the first line is easiest to cross. Any Israeli citizen or foreigner with a valid visa can pass between Israel's internationally recognised borders and the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. There isn't even a checkpoint. It's been 58 years since Israel occupied the Golan Heights in the Six Day War and 44 years since Israel officially annexed the territory. In 2019, the United States became the first and only country to recognise the Golan Heights as sovereign Israeli territory. The second line is where almost everyone has to stop. This is the Bravo Line – the eastern limit of Israeli forces, decided upon in a 1974 delimitation agreement. Past the Bravo Line, there's a buffer zone where UN peacekeepers are stationed, which averages about six to seven kilometres in width. After that comes the Alpha Line, which the 1974 agreement stipulated as the western limit of Syrian forces. On 8 December 2024, the Assad regime collapsed and Syrian border troops fled their posts. That same day, Israeli forces marched across an entirely unprotected border. Since then, Israel has occupied an additional 220 square kilometres of Syrian territory, for a total occupied territory in Syria of 460 square kilometres. That's an area 26 per cent larger than the Gaza strip. The fourth line is the forward operating position of Israeli forces – which stretches from the peak of Mount Hermon in the north, through the towns of Khan Arnabah and Madinat al-Salam – reaching as far as the outskirts of Qatana District near Damascus. On 27 January, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz visited the newly-occupied side of Mount Hermon and said that Israeli forces would remain at its summit, and in the 'security zone', indefinitely. The final line creates a buffer zone beyond the new Israeli front line 'Take note: we will not allow HTS forces or the new Syrian Army to enter the area south of Damascus,' Netanyahu declared at a military ceremony on 23 February. The Prime Minister demanded a demilitarised area in the Quneitra, Daraa and Suwayda provinces, for the stated reason of protecting the local Druze population, a splinter sect of Islam with large populations in Syria, Israel and Lebanon. A few days later, gun battles broke out between Druze fighters and gunmen connected to the Syrian transitional government in a suburb of Damascus, killing dozens. The clashes quickly spread to the Druze stronghold of Suwayda and other nearby areas. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, 89 Druze fighters, 32 Syrian government personnel, and 18 civilians were killed in the fighting between February and May. The five lines separating Israel and Syria create three buffer zones The Syrian Druze are divided on whether to integrate into the new Islamist Syrian state or fight for autonomy with Israeli assistance. 'Aside from a handful of militias with links to the former Assad regime, all of Syria's main Druze leaders, militias and interest groups have condemned Israel's recent actions,' Pinfold, the defence studies lecturer, argues in his report. Wherever Syrian-Druze public opinion lies on the question of Israeli intervention, protecting them has been the primary justification for Israel's campaign in Syria. 'When the Druze were attacked in Syria during the civil war, Israel didn't intervene, despite the Assad regime being part of an anti-Israel axis. So intervening now, when the current regime in Damascus is doing everything it can to reach out to Jerusalem, seems like a crime of opportunity,' said Shaiel Ben-Ephraim, a former Israeli diplomat and political commentator. But Israel has also justified its expanded presence in Syria as a necessary measure to prevent jihadist groups from entrenching near its northern border and staging cross-border attacks. 'We're definitely worried about having another 7 October attack from Syria,' said Yousef, the Druze man in Majdal Shams. 'The iron dome can detect where rockets might land, so if it's going to be in an open area, they just let it fall. But my main worry is artillery. The iron dome can't catch that,' he said. Ephraim says that Israel's policy in Syria can best be understood as a mania for security, not necessarily as an imperial conquest. 'People will look at this and think it's another Israeli land grab – and it's partly that – but the army genuinely thinks they need this land for security,' he said. The five lines separating Israel and Syria create three buffer zones: one is a zone of full control, another is a zone of partial control, and one is a 'zone of intervention', as Ephraim calls it. Despite the expanded occupation and the hundreds of airstrikes that Israel has launched against Syria, including one on 2 May just around the corner from Al-Sharaa's presidential palace, the Syrian government has been conciliatory at every turn. 'The Syrians have been incredibly patient. I think they're going to settle for whatever Israel does, hoping that a new government will give them something more favourable,' Ephraim said. That new government, he expects, will be led by former prime minister Naftali Bennett. 'Bennett won't want to be totally hostile to Syria, but he won't want to chicken out either. Until we get a new government, we're likely to see a holding pattern, where Israel will make as few concessions to Syria as it possibly can,' he said. Al-Sharaa's forces have pacified most of the Iran-backed militias in Syria. But Israel's demilitarised zone south of Damascus has created a new breeding ground for UAB and its allies in the IRFS. 'The Syrian security forces have been helpful in terms of seizing shipments of drones, weapons and other illegal contraband likely meant for Lebanese Hezbollah in Lebanon, but have not been able to effectively deal with UAB,' said Sary Mumayiz, a researcher at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. The potential for the Iran-Israel war to destabilise Syria and the broader region is immense. Since Israel started striking Iran, it has conducted three ground incursions into south-west Syria, according to Lister, the Syria analyst. Meanwhile, Iran-backed forces in western Iraq have been firing on Syrian government positions across the border. As this conflict metastasizes, Al-Sharaa and his forces are simply holding the line – hoping to avoid setting off a tripwire that would invite even more punishment from the titans going to war over their heads.
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Lifetime Isas may need to carry warnings for some savers
The complexity of Lifetime Isas could increase the risk of savers making poor financial decisions and the products may need to carry warnings for some people, according to a committee of MPs. The savings accounts enable people to save for their first home or their retirement in one pot. But the Treasury Committee said the dual-purpose design of the Lifetime Isa, or Lisa, may be diverting people away from more suitable products. MPs found that the objectives to help people save for both the short and long term make it more likely that people will choose unsuitable investment strategies. Lisas held in cash may suit those saving for a first home, but may not achieve the best outcome for those using accounts as a retirement savings product, as they are unable to invest in higher-risk but potentially higher-return products such as bonds and equities, the committee said. It also described current rules penalising benefit claimants as 'nonsensical'. Under the current system, any savings held in a Lisa can affect eligibility for universal credit or housing benefit, despite this not being the case for other personal or workplace pension schemes, the committee said. The report said: 'The Government provides higher levels of contribution through tax relief to many other pension products that are not included in the universal credit eligibility assessment, such as workplace pensions and Sipps (self-invested personal pensions). Treating one retirement product differently from others in that regard is nonsensical.' The report added: 'If the Government is unwilling to equalise the treatment of the Lifetime Isa with other Government-subsidised retirement savings products in universal credit assessments, Lifetime Isa products must include warnings that the Lifetime Isa is an inferior product for anyone who might one day be in receipt of universal credit. 'Such warnings would guard against savers being sold products that are not in their best financial interests, which might well constitute mis-selling.' Savers can put in up to £4,000 into a Lisa each year, until they reach 50. They must make their first payment into their Lisa before the age of 40. The Government will add a 25% bonus to Lisa savings, up to a maximum of £1,000 per year. People can withdraw money from their Lisa if they are buying their first home, aged 60 or over or terminally ill with less than 12 months to live. People withdrawing money from a Lisa for any other reason face a 25% withdrawal charge, and can end up with less money than they put in. The report said: 'The withdrawal charge of 25% is applied to unauthorised withdrawals, causing Lisa holders to lose the Government bonuses that they have received, plus 6.25% of their own contributions. 'Several witnesses described that loss of 6.25% as a 'withdrawal penalty'.' There are also restrictions on when Lisas can be used to buy a first home, including that the property must cost £450,000 or less. The report said: 'Many people have lost a portion of their savings due to a lack of understanding of the withdrawal charge or because of unforeseen changes in their circumstances, such as buying a first home at a price greater than the cap. 'However, the case for reducing the charge must be balanced against the impact on Government spending. The Lifetime Isa must include a deterrent to discourage savers from withdrawing funds from long-term saving.' It also added: 'Before considering any increase in the house price cap, the Government must analyse whether the Lifetime Isa is the most effective way in which to spend taxpayers' money to support first-time buyers.' The committee noted that in the 2023-24 financial year, nearly double the number of people made an unauthorised withdrawal (99,650) compared to the number of people who used their Lisa to buy a home (56,900). This should be considered a possible indication that the product is not working as intended, the committee said. At the end of the tax year 2023–24, around 1.3 million Lisa accounts were open, the report said. The Office for Budget Responsibility predicts spending on bonuses paid to account holders will cost the Treasury around £3 billion over the five years to 2029-30 – and the committee questioned whether this product is the best use of public money given the current financial strain. MPs also raised concerns that the product may not be well enough targeted towards those in need of financial support and could be subsidising the cost of a first home for wealthier people. It said the data on this issue remains unclear. The report also highlighted the benefits of certain elements of the Lisa, including being an option for the self-employed to save for retirement. Treasury Committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier said: 'The committee is firmly behind the objectives of the Lifetime Isa, which are to help those who need it onto the property ladder and to help people save for retirement from an early age. The question is whether the Lifetime Isa is the best way to spend billions of pounds over several years to achieve those goals. 'We know that the Government is looking at Isa reform imminently, which means this is the perfect time to assess if this is the best way to help the people who need it. 'We are still awaiting further data that may shed some light on who exactly the product is helping. What we already know, though, is that the Lifetime Isa needs to be reformed before it can genuinely be described as a market-leading savings product for both prospective home buyers and those who want to start saving for their retirement at a young age.' Brian Byrnes, head of personal finance at Lifetime Isa provider Moneybox said: 'The report marks a further opportunity to engage with policymakers and continue the conversations needed to ensure the Lisa continues to offer the best level of support to those that need it most.' He added: 'While it is right that the Government ensures the Lisa provides value for money as part of its review of the product, it is our view that it absolutely does… 'The Lisa has proven particularly valuable for first-time buyers on lower to middle incomes, with 80% of Moneybox Lisa savers earning £40,000 or less.' He continued: 'We firmly believe that by future-proofing the house price cap and amending the withdrawal penalty, the Lisa would continue to serve as a highly effective product, helping young people build and embed positive saving behaviours early in life, get more people onto the property ladder, and prepare for a more secure retirement.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Bridget Phillipson says she wants more young people in UK to have children
Bridget Phillipson has expressed concern at the UK's falling birthrate, with the education secretary saying she wanted more young people to have children. In an article for the Daily Telegraph, written to promote a government policy of providing new nursery places inside about 200 schools across England, Phillipson said she hoped to make it easier for people to have children. The fertility rate in England and Wales is currently at 1.44 children per woman, the lowest since records began in 1938 and below the figure of around 2.1 needed to maintain a population. The number of babies born in 2023 was the lowest since 1977. In the article, Phillipson said the falling birthrate was 'a trend which has worrying repercussions for society in the future, but tells a story, heartbreakingly, about the dashed dreams of many families'. She went on: 'It's why I want more young people to have children, if they so choose; to realise the ordinary aspiration so many share, to create the moments and memories that make our lives fulfilling: having children, seeing them take their first steps, dropping them off at their first day at school, guiding them on their journey into the world of work or taking them to university for the first time.' Phillipson's comments are reminiscent of entreaties by a series of European leaders for people in their countries to have more children, although hers are expressed as a hope to increase people's opportunities for children should they want to. While the total number of women of childbearing age is the highest ever, research shows that many people are wary about having children, often because of financial or housing pressures, as well as changing social attitudes. In her article, Phillipson noted the changed economic and social circumstances in which more than three-quarters of mothers of dependent children had paid jobs, requiring help with things such as childcare. 'But at the same time, the cost of living has soared, dominated by the vast increase in the cost of housing,' she wrote. 'A generation of young people has been thinking twice about starting a family; worried not only about rising mortgage and rent costs, wary not only of the price of fuel and food but also put off by a childcare system simultaneously lacking in places and ruinously expensive.' Reform UK has previously called for policies to help people have more children, such as abolishing the two-child limit for some benefits and some tax breaks, but Phillipson described these as 'back-of-a-fag-packet solutions that crumble under the slightest scrutiny'. She contrasted these with what she said was a series of family-friendly Labour policies, including the plan around 200 school-based nurseries to open in England from September, intended to accommodate 4,000 children under school age. This will be expanded later in the school year to 300, adding to other measures aimed at helping parents such as free breakfast clubs, more free hours of childcare, an expansion of free school meals and a cap on school uniform costs.
