Events in Gaza a ‘live-streamed genocide', High Court told
The conflict in Gaza is a 'live-streamed genocide', the High Court has been told.
Al-Haq, a Palestinian human rights organisation, is bringing legal action against the Department for Business and Trade over decisions about licences to export weapons and military equipment to Israel.
In September last year, the Government suspended licences following a review of Israel's compliance with international humanitarian law in the ongoing conflict, but an exemption was made for some licences related to components of F-35 fighter jets.
Lawyers for Al-Haq claim the Government misunderstood the relevant parts of international law when allowing the unlawful 'carve-out' for the parts for the planes described as 'the most lethal fighter jets in the world'.
The Government is defending the legal challenge, including by saying that it is not possible to suspend the F-35 related licences to Israel without negatively impacting a wider international programme.
At the start of a four-day hearing at the High Court in London, Raza Husain KC, for Al-Haq, said the 'carve-out' 'gives rise to a significant risk of facilitating crime'.
He said on Tuesday: 'This claim being heard against the backdrop of human calamity unfolding in Gaza, the extremity of which is difficult to convey in words.'
Mr Husain said that around 2.2 million people live in Gaza, which is around the size of the Isle of Wight, and that around 55,000 Palestinians had been killed between October 2023 and April this year.
The barrister said in written submissions: 'In just over 18 months, Israel has decimated an entire society.'
'That Israel has acted in this way is demonstrable and incontrovertible.
'What is happening in Gaza is a live-streamed genocide,' he added.
Mr Husain later said that the Government failed to properly assess whether the continued export of F-35 parts was compliant with part of the Geneva Conventions when there was a clear risk the parts might be used to commit or facilitate violations of international humanitarian law by Israel.
At a preliminary hearing, the High Court 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'.
The F-35 programme is an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets, with the UK contributing components for both assembly lines and an international pool.
Sir James Eadie KC, for the Government, said in written submissions that the 'carve out' is 'consistent with the rules of international law'.
The barrister, who is expected to make oral submissions later this week, continued: 'Many of the arguments advanced by the claimant seek to develop the relevant rules of international law beyond the positions that have to date been adopted by international courts or tribunals.'
Sir James also said that part of the case was not able to be decided by the court, as he said it is unable to decide whether Israel has breached international law obligations.
He added: 'The nature of the allegations, and considerations of comity, firmly militate against this court determining a claim in which Israel's alleged breaches of international law are put directly in issue.'
Sir James later said that some of the criticisms 'are not based on a balanced appreciation of the facts, and are made without taking into account: the true depth and range of the information-gathering and analysis which was undertaken by the Government in reaching the September decision; or the inherent limitations to which the analysis and assessment were subject'.
Dozens of protesters gathered outside the Royal Courts of Justice ahead of the hearing, waving banners and chanting.
Speaking to gathered demonstrators, former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said: 'We're here again, and just in case the British Government and the Israeli government have missed the message, we are not going away.
'We are standing with the Palestinian people for as long as it takes.'
Charities Oxfam and Amnesty International, as well as Human Rights Watch, are intervening in the case, with Oxfam expected to make submissions on Wednesday.
The hearing before Lord Justice Males and Mrs Justice Steyn is due to conclude on Friday with a decision expected in writing at a later date.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
24 minutes ago
- Reuters
IAEA chief relays Iran warning against Israeli strikes on nuclear facilities
CAIRO, June 9 (Reuters) - International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi said Iranians warned him that an Israel strike on the country's nuclear facilities could cause Iran to be more determined about developing a nuclear weapon, according to an interview broadcast and published on Monday. 'A strike could potentially have an amalgamating effect, solidifying Iran's determination – I will say it plainly – to pursue a nuclear weapon or withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons,' Grossi said in the interview, published on the Jerusalem Post website and broadcast on i24 TV on Monday. Grossi, however, doubted that Israel would strike Tehran's nuclear facilities, the Jerusalem Post reported. The Iranian nuclear program "runs wide and deep," Grossi told the Jerusalem Post. "Disrupting them would require overwhelming and devastating force." Tehran and Washington have recently engaged in Oman-mediated nuclear talks. Iran is set to hand a counter-proposal for a nuclear deal to the United States via Oman, Iranian foreign ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baghaei said on Monday, in response to a U.S. offer that Tehran deems "unacceptable". Last week, U.S. President Donald Trump said he had warned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to take actions that could disrupt nuclear talks with Iran. "I told him this would be inappropriate to do right now because we're very close to a solution now," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. "That could change at any moment." Trump and Netanyahu are expected to speak over the phone on Monday.
Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Left-wing activists like Greta Thunberg care more about fame than facts
This image will forever be compared with the horror show of the actual kidnap of hostages by Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups. There are girls younger than Greta, with bloodied pants, their Achilles tendons cut; a mother clutching her two red-haired children whom we now know are dead; a terrified old lady being abducted. It is said that the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) will force Thunberg and her crew to watch the brutal footage recorded on October 7. I doubt this will make much difference. In 2023, the IDF showed Hamas body cam footage collected after the Nova festival attack to the press in London. Most of the viewers were in tears but certain activist 'journalists' came out saying there was no proof of women being raped as they had not been shown that. Thunberg, like so many of her generation wrapped up in their made-in-China keffiyehs, are not interested in the specifics of this conflict. This is what happens when a young girl with a penchant for protest becomes too feted. She addressed national parliaments and Davos as a climate activist and was interviewed everywhere, so she must have grasped the fact that her youth and passion energised many. Unsurprisingly, then, her symbolic power was soon commodified as she appeared at protest after protest, morphing effortlessly from climate change activism to Palestinian solidarity. Political activism is now algorithmic. Hey, if you liked that cause, then try this one. The 'Left' these days often seems little more than a collection of disparate causes: eco stuff, trans rights and Free Palestine. The contradictions between these beliefs are underplayed as they become bundled together as an omnicause. I first heard that word used in 2023. The omnicause can incorporate everything from animal rights to emptying the jails. Forget the single issues that require specific, often boring campaigning: the omnicause is a moronic vacuum where analysis goes to die. It is a product partly of the horizontalisation of social media. By this, I mean that something such as Black Lives Matter and Defund the Police, which had relevance in America a few years ago, gets picked up here… even though we have a quite different population and methods of policing. Those protesting what is happening in Gaza are not all uninformed, but many are. Younger people recruited from Just Stop Oil (and now presenting as Youth Demand) have stopped soup-throwing in favour of this new pressing cause. But they have not talked about famine in Yemen or the atrocities of Sudan. Interconnectedness has its limits, after all. There may well be links between climate change and war. Many argue that drought was a factor in the unrest that led to the Syrian civil war. The omnicause, though, does not do specifics. It favours symbolic demonstrations that can go viral. These simplistic spectacles of righteousness often backfire. What did Fossil Free Books achieve, for instance? It decided to campaign against companies that had any connection to Israel. The result was that investment firms such as Baillie Gifford stopped funding book festivals. How this helped either the environment or indeed the Palestinian cause is something of a mystery. Thunberg's stunt has been similarly self-aggrandising and vacuous. Watching footage of this climate activist and her mates all chucking their expensive phones into the sea as they were about to be taken by the Israelis showed that, of course, when the chips were down, environmental concerns went out of the window. The omnicause does not require logic, consistency or even coherence. It is closer to acting than activism. It depends on melodrama and a narrative of provocative images. Thunberg may be brave and have been prepared to sacrifice herself – though for what, exactly, I am not sure. But now we have seen the pictures, I am afraid that what she has sacrificed has been her integrity. The omnicause burns itself out in the end because it has no actual strategy. It simply signifies tribal loyalty. It gobbles everything up and spits out its participants, who simply move on to the next 'wrong' thing. You might think that, for Thunberg, her ship has sailed. But that does not mean she won't clamber aboard the next one that hoves into view.
Telegraph
31 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Dawn French's moronic outburst on Israel spells the death of celebrity virtue-signalling
There's no denying that Dawn French's video about Israel was mind-bogglingly crass. In particular the bit when she put on a silly, babyish voice and referred to the October 7 massacre as 'a bad fing'. Even so, let's not be too hard on her. In time, I believe, we may end up owing her our deepest gratitude. Because, thanks to the sheer, blistering ferocity of the backlash she's received, other mush-brained luvvies may finally take the hint – and stop inflicting their witless political views on the rest of us. To be clear: I'm not suggesting that these people deserve to be cancelled for their opinions. Cancel culture is a blight on our age, and famous actors have got just as much right to free speech as anyone else. The problem is that, all too often, what they say is so cluelessly conformist. It's obvious that they're only passing comment because they think trotting out the fashionable line on a given topic – Israel, gender identity, net zero or whatever – will make them look good. With any luck, therefore, Ms French's experience will deter them from expressing a view on such issues until they've bothered to give them some actual thought. And if that sounds too much like hard work, and they'd prefer not to say anything, that's absolutely fine. Why on earth should we expect actors to have intelligent opinions on current affairs, anyway? Their day job is to recite words that have been written for them by other, much smarter people. It doesn't require them to think. So you might as well seek geopolitical analysis from a performing seal, or a parrot. Ms French, however, seems to have believed she had some kind of duty to air her criticisms of Israel's military strategy. In a subsequent statement apologising for her 'tone', she wrote: 'I have felt my silence is complicit or even somehow sanctioning.' Allow me to put her mind at ease. Dear Ms French, I promise you: your previous 'silence' was not responsible for a single death in the Middle East. Even if you'd published your video months ago, Benjamin Netanyahu would not have said, 'Stand down, everyone – I'm ordering an immediate ceasefire. Look, I know we want to defeat Hamas and save the hostages. But, as a nation, we simply can't afford to incur the wrath of that woman from The Vicar of Dibley.' So please, dear Dawn, try not to feel guilty. In fact, be proud. Because if your calamitous own goal does indeed prompt other celebrities to abandon their narcissistic virtue-signalling, it will be the greatest contribution to human happiness you'll ever make.
