{"id":885243,"date":"2026-06-22T16:39:16","date_gmt":"2026-06-22T16:39:16","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/885243\/"},"modified":"2026-06-22T16:39:16","modified_gmt":"2026-06-22T16:39:16","slug":"judge-orders-pro-palestine-group-to-pay-uk-israeli-idf-soldier-after-failed-case","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/885243\/","title":{"rendered":"Judge orders pro-Palestine group to pay UK-Israeli IDF soldier after failed case"},"content":{"rendered":"

The International Center of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) has been ordered to pay costs after failing to bring a private prosecution against a dual British-Israeli citizen<\/a> (called Soldier A) who served in a reserve IDF unit after October 7, 2023. ICJP\u2019s antics were also called \u201cegregious\u201d and \u201cinexcusable\u201d by the presiding judge.<\/p>\n

ICJP describes itself as \u201can independent organisation of lawyers, politicians, and academics\u201d concerned with the situation in Gaza. The attempted summons against Soldier A was the ICJP\u2019s first private prosecution attempt.<\/p>\n

ICJP made the application for the summons of Soldier A on November 6, 2025, with the aim that he be charged under Section 4 of the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870. However, UK<\/a> Lawyers for Israel intervened and pointed out that the offense could only be committed by \u201ca British subject\u201d and that, by virtue of Section 35 of the British Nationality Act 1981, a British and\/or Israeli citizen is not a British subject. UKLFI also pointed out that successive UK Governments have also explicitly stated that the FEA does not apply to British dual nationals serving in the IDF.<\/p>\n

Judge Paul Goldspring of Westminster Magistrates\u2019<\/a> Court ultimately ruled on April 8, 2026 that ICJP\u2019s application was \u201cfundamentally misconceived in law,\u201d as the FEA does not apply to dual nationals.<\/p>\n

\u201cFor a dual national<\/a>, service in the armed forces of his other state of nationality is not \u2018foreign enlistment\u2019 in any meaningful sense,\u201d Goldspring wrote in his decision.<\/p>\n

\"ProtestersProtesters with placards attend outside Westminster Magistrates’ Court on April 01, 2026 in London, England. The court rules in the case of Palestine Solidarity Campaign’s Ben Jamal and Stop the War Coalition’s Chris Nineham, who are accused of breaching protest restrictions in January 2025. (credit: Alishia Abodunde\/Getty Images)The case, which had no legal basis, still failed due to lack of admissible evidence<\/p>\n

Goldspring also said that Soldier A did not actually \u201cenlist\u201d on October 8, 2023, but merely reported for reserve duty pursuant to his existing liability under Israeli law.<\/p>\n

He also dismissed the ICJP\u2019s argument that Israel was at war with a state friendly to the UK (the FEA requires that a foreign state be at war with a friendly state).<\/p>\n

Goldspring then went on to say that, even if the ICJP\u2019s legal case were sound, \u201cwhich it is not,\u201d the application would still fail due to lack of admissible evidence.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe [ICJP] relies solely on open-source material to establish British citizenship. While the possession of a British passport is direct evidence of British nationality, there is no proper evidential foundation for the assertion that the Proposed Defendant holds such a passport. The material before me consists of photographs and assertions, but no \u00a0admissible evidence capable of proof in a criminal court.\u201d<\/p>\n

He also said that the UK\u2019s recognition of the state of Palestine cannot be applied with retrospective effect.<\/p>\n

\u201cIf the [Soldier A] enlisted years before the recognition of Palestinian statehood, that recognition is irrelevant,\u201d said Goldspring.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe conflict in Gaza and Lebanon is, in reality, with the UK-proscribed terrorist organizations Hamas and Hezbollah. The UK cannot be regarded as being \u2018at peace\u2019 with proscribed terrorist organisations (see Schedule 2 to the Terrorism Act 2000).\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIt is also of note that the Royal Air Force participated in coalition efforts to defend Israel from aerial attack. In light of this fact, the Applicant\u2019s suppositions fall embarrassingly short of any evidential threshold.\u201d<\/p>\n

The judge expressed harsh words to the ICJP for omitting key details<\/strong><\/p>\n

Goldspring also expressed harsh words regarding the ICJP\u2019s omission of the dual-nationality of Soldier A, and how this makes it permissible for him to serve in a foreign army.<\/p>\n

\u201cDespite this knowledge, the [ICJP] did not see fit to inform this Court of any of these statements in its application, its case summary, or its skeleton argument. This is a serious and inexcusable omission.\u201d<\/p>\n

He further condemned the presentation of the ICJP\u2019s expert witness Dr. Mandy Turner as \u201cindependent,\u201d when, in fact, she is active in social media activity and activism.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe partisan and misleading nature of this expert evidence is more akin to propaganda than independent analysis. None of this was disclosed to the Court. The expert is, in my judgment, properly considered a campaigner and activist, not an independent expert,\u201d he wrote.<\/p>\n

Goldspring did not take these omissions lightly. He said they constitute \u201cwithholding of material information, which is a critical factor in determining an abuse of process.\u201d<\/p>\n

He more broadly concluded that he believed that ICJP\u2019s \u201cdominant motive\u201d was not the pursuit of justice for a specific criminal act, \u201cbut rather the advancement of a political and ideological agenda.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe courts must not be used as a vehicle for political debate or to \u2018expose\u2019 individuals for alleged wrongdoing which falls outside the scope of criminal law in order or to cause embarrassment to individuals or highlight a particular cause in a public forum, such as a courtroom. I fear that is close to being the case here.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThis application is legally flawed, evidentially deficient, and procedurally defective. It constitutes an abuse of the process of this court, driven by an improper motive and facilitated by serious breaches of the duty of candor. The application for a summons is refused.\u201d<\/p>\n

Ordered to pay costs\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Then, on June 19, Goldspring ruled that ICJP must pay legal costs to Soldier A, the exact amount of which will be decided later.<\/p>\n

In this ruling, the judge said the failures of ICJP were \u201cegregious.\u201d He also said that honesty and full disclosure are \u201cthe foundation stone upon which such decisions are taken,\u201d and that, in this case, the \u201cfoundation stone has crumbled.\u201d<\/p>\n

Notably, this is unusually strong language from a judge.<\/p>\n

The court, however, rejected attempts to penalize the ICJP\u2019s solicitors and barristers, saying they acted on instructions and were allowed to rely on what they were told, and that the evidence did not meet the very high legal threshold required to personally punish lawyers for misconduct.<\/p>\n

A UKLFI spokesperson said, \u201cThe main judgment was a complete vindication of the position that British-Israeli dual nationals who serve in the IDF are not committing criminal offenses under the Foreign Enlistment Act.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cThe court rejected ICJP\u2019s case on every point and delivered a devastating criticism of the way in which the application was presented.\u201d<\/p>\n

UKLFI said the court\u2019s findings that ICJP failed to disclose material information and breached its duty of candor were \u201cparticularly concerning,\u201d and said the court\u2019s decision to order costs against ICJP \u201creflects the seriousness of those failures.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Jerusalem Post reached out to the ICJP and Soldier A for comment.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The International Center of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) has been ordered to pay costs after failing to bring…\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":885244,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[2],"tags":[53729,99,51008,359338,50,376],"class_list":["post-885243","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-news","tag-idf-reserves","tag-israel","tag-israel-protest","tag-lawfare","tag-news","tag-united-kingdom"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@us\/116794752056151862","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/885243","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=885243"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/885243\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/885244"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=885243"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=885243"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/us\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=885243"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}