British court orders anti-Israel group to pay more than $110,000 after failed bid to prosecute Israeli reservist

The court determined that the defendant was not newly joining a foreign military but was instead fulfilling a pre-existing reserve duty required under Israeli law.

By Ailin Vilches Arguello, The Algemeiner

A British court has ordered the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) to pay more than $110,000 in legal costs after its failed attempt to prosecute a dual British-Israeli citizen for serving in an Israeli army reserve unit following the Hamas-led massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.

Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London this week ordered the anti-Israel group to pay approximately $110,500 (£82,130) to the defendant after Paul Goldspring, chief magistrate of England and Wales, dismissed the case, ruling that the prosecution was legally baseless and politically motivated.

Goldspring had ruled in April that the ICJP’s interpretation of British law was “fundamentally flawed,” finding that its arguments had no basis under existing legislation when the group sought to prosecute the Israeli reservist over his military service.

The defendant — who moved to Israel in 2014 and enlisted in the Israeli military three years later — was in London during the Hamas-led invasion of southern Israel more than two years ago but flew back to the country the following day to report for duty with his reserve unit.

The ICJP formally initiated legal proceedings against the reservist last year, alleging that his voluntary military service violated Britain’s Foreign Enlistment Act 1870 — a 19th-century law that generally prohibits British citizens from enlisting in the armed forces of a foreign state at war with a country friendly to the United Kingdom.

Had it succeeded, the case would have set a precedent for pursuing legal action against individuals who serve in foreign militaries.

“In line with ICJP’s Global 195 campaign, this is a significant step in holding suspected war criminals accountable within domestic jurisdictions for offenses that they have committed outside of their home countries,” ICJP legal chief Mutahir Ahmed said at the time.

Ahmed argued that accountability should reach across the ranks, adding that “war criminals must be held accountable for their role in the genocide, from the most senior generals to the most junior foot soldier.”

The judge, however, ruled that the legislation does not apply to dual nationals serving in the armed forces of their other country of nationality, dealing a blow to mounting efforts by anti-Israel groups to bring criminal cases against Israeli soldiers through European national courts.

The court determined that the defendant was not newly joining a foreign military but was instead fulfilling a pre-existing reserve duty required under Israeli law.

Goldspring said the ICJP had attempted to use the criminal courts as “a platform for political posturing” rather than pursuing justice, describing the group’s application as “egregious” and legally “inadmissible.”

The court also found that the ICJP had committed “profound and serious breaches of the duty of candor” by failing to disclose the longstanding British government position recognizing that dual nationals may legally serve in the armed forces of their other country of citizenship.

Goldspring further criticized the group’s expert witness, finding that her evidence was “partisan and misleading” and resembled “propaganda” rather than the independent analysis expected of an expert.

Speaking to reporters after the ruling, the defendant called the decision an “incredibly strong win,” saying it vindicated his position after months of legal uncertainty and brought “a great end to a long and stressful saga.”

He added, “It really shows that justice can prevail and that this judge saw through the games, the political meddling that was trying to be done here.”

The ICJP acknowledged the ruling but maintained that private prosecutions are a long-established part of the legal system, providing a way to seek accountability when public authorities decline to bring charges.

“We will continue to pursue accountability for grave international crimes through every lawful avenue available,” the group wrote in a post on X.

“This ruling is not a verdict on the underlying allegations… This ruling marks the end of one legal case, not the pursuit of accountability.”