UK cleared of aiding Israeli 'terrorism'

A high court judge today dismissed a legal bid by a Muslim group to block the use of UK airports by American planes to supply weapons to Israel as "hopeless" and "misconceived".

A judge in London rejected a plea by the Islamic Human Rights Commission (IHRC) for permission to seek judicial review and an injunction against the government, based on the argument that it was knowingly assisting "acts of terrorism" by Israel in its campaign against Hezbollah in southern Lebanon.

Mr Justice Ouseley had been urged to rule that the UK was guilty of aiding and abetting breaches of international law by allowing US aircraft carrying bombs and detonators to Israel to stop over at UK airports.

But the judge said at the start of his judgment that the IHRC had failed to establish an arguable case "by a very long way".

The IHRC had sought permission to bring proceedings against the Civil Aviation Authority, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and defence secretary Des Browne to stop "grave and serious violations" of international humanitarian law and crimes against the Geneva conventions.

Peter Carter QC, for the IHRC, told the judge that Britain was assisting in "disproportionate military attacks" which killed and caused terror to people not directly involved in the conflict. The government knew that the arms shipments would encourage Israel to continue its attacks, in the knowledge that supplies would be replenished by the US.

The Israeli attacks, sometimes indiscriminate, were killing people, causing great suffering, forcing families to leave their homes and causing extensive destruction of property, he said. They were "not justified by military necessity".

Citing the Terrorism Act, Mr Carter said Israel's aim of removing Hezbollah from southern Lebanon amounted to "action or the threat of action involving violence or the threat of violence whose purpose is part of a political or ideological cause".

The IHRC said it brought the case "following many complaints that we have received from British citizens whose family members are in Lebanon and facing grave danger as well as acts of terror". The judge said the IHRC's case was "hopeless", "wholly untenable" and "misconceived".

The IHRC had not identified any individual who had committed or was intending to commit or assist acts of terrorism in the UK, a prerequisite of establishing a case.

Its allegation was brought indiscriminately against ministers, officials and administrators without any consideration or analysis of their knowledge of what had been done or what was proposed in the future.

The judge said it was "wholly inappropriate" to bring such proceedings in the hope of discovering individuals who might then be accused of having committed an offence.

In any event, the court had been shown no evidence that the state of Israel was guilty of terror crimes, or that the UK government considered it might be guilty of such offences.

Ordering the IHRC to pay £10,000 costs, the judge said it had pursued its claim despite the obvious hopelessness of its case and despite the current ceasefire in Lebanon, which should have given it time to reconsider.

He said the proceedings involved an element of "making a political point".

But the IHRC did not have substantial resources and he limited the costs order to £10,000, considerably less than the full costs incurred by the government departments and the CAA in contesting the case.

Guardian Unlimited