UK Court Victory for Dual UK Israel IDF Soldier
A dual UK-Israel national recently successfully defeated an attempt to prosecute him for serving in the IDF.
In November 2025 a UK organisation called the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians (ICJP) applied in a UK court to institute a private prosecution against a dual UK-Israel citizen under the Foreign Enlistment Act of 1870 (FEA). The soldier was a reservist in the Israel Defense Force (IDF) and was living in Britain when the invasion by Hamas from Gaza into Israel took place on 7 October 2023. He immediately reported for duty on 8 October 2023, but this was not considered an enlistment by the court. He had already previously enlisted and served in the IDF.
The private prosecution application was brought by a British organisation which described itself as ‘an independent organisation of lawyers, politicians and academics’ concerned with the situation in Palestine, ‘who support the rights of Palestinians and aim to protect their rights through the law’. On 31 October 2024, UK Lawyers for Israel intervened on behalf of the soldier and in March 2026 the case was heard in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court before Senior District Judge Goldspring.
The FEA is legislation dating back to the Victorian era and was specifically aimed at preventing British nationals from serving as mercenaries in foreign conflicts to preserve British neutrality or serve in armed forces hostile to Britain. The judge stated, “Successive UK Governments have explicitly stated that British dual nationals have the right to serve in the armed forces of their other state of nationality, including the IDF.”
The judge ruled that the FEA does not apply to dual nationals serving in the armed forces of the additional state of nationality. It was emphasised that this would be an absurd overreach that would criminalise, for example, Indian or Pakistani Commonwealth citizens enlisting in their own national armies. A “British subject” means someone who is exclusively British, not someone who also holds the nationality of the state in whose forces they are serving. In any event the FEA is antiquated, and the court has no power to declare whether Israel was at war with a foreign state. Only the Executive can do this and there was no declaration at all. There was no evidence before this Court that the UK Executive recognises a formal state of war between Israel and any foreign state at peace with His Majesty. The court did not accept that a “state of war” in the legal sense existed.
The application generated significant public attention and is of importance in understanding why not only why it was so resoundingly unsuccessful but drew the ire of the presiding judge against the unethical conduct of ICJP and lack of disclosure, a duty which a party owes the court in this kind of case. The judge concluded:
“This 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 candour.”
The judge had scathing words to say about the ICJP:
“I am also persuaded by the submission that the dominant motive behind this application is not the pursuit of justice for a specific criminal act, but rather the advancement of a political and ideological agenda. The Applicant describes itself as an organisation that ‘support[s] the rights of Palestinians and aim[s] to protect their rights through the law.’ This is an admirable objective. However, the criminal courts are not a platform for political posturing or the pursuit of ideological grievances”.
He noted that:
“I understand there has not been a prosecution under the statute in modern history and possibly since WW1 … “. “When combined with the partisan and misleading nature of the expert evidence, the breaches of the duty of candour, and the legal and evidential deficiencies already identified, the vexatious nature of these proceedings is laid bare.”
He had this to say about the ‘expert’ witness of the ICJP:
“Dr Turner’s use of language is far from neutral or independent. She refers to a proscribed terrorist organisation [i.e. Hamas] as an “armed group” and refers to the IDF (Israel Defence Force) incorrectly as the “IOF” (Israel Occupation Force), which is not just inaccurate but displays bias and is pejorative. The 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.”
An award of costs was made with a strong expression of judicial disapproval against the ICJP. It was ordered as the unsuccessful party to pay the legal costs of the IDF soldier.
In South Africa section 198(b) of the Constitution precludes South African citizens from participating in any foreign armed conflict. It does not however speak to dual nationals and is comparable to the UK as seen above.
The Regulation of Foreign Military Assistance Act, 1998, prohibits assistance to foreign military forces but its provisions are vague. It is primarily to prohibit South African from mercenary activities. New legislation has been long awaited to clarify the position but is not yet in place. Information is hazy regarding whether there have been successful prosecutions of South Africans serving in foreign armies or assisting foreign militias.
Despite the lack of success in such cases, there have, however, been pressures in South Africa to prosecute South Africans who have served in the IDF. The SA Jewish Report dated 4 April 2024 reported that:
“In an apparent hardening of the South African government’s position against Israel, Pandor hasn’t just threatened to have South African citizens fighting in the IDF prosecuted. The government also warned in December 2023 that naturalised South Africans could have their citizenship revoked for joining foreign armed forces engaged in wars the country didn’t agree with.”
It cannot be overlooked that this statement by the Foreign Minister was made shortly after the outbreak of the Gaza War and in the same month as South Africa filed its genocide case against Israel in the ICJ.
This was not a new development. In 2009, the Palestinian Solidarity Alliance referred to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for prosecution, the names of some 73 South Africans who had served during 2008 and 2009 in the IDF. The NPA declined to prosecute. Another case was brought against a S A citizen serving in the Israel military in 2014. Again, no prosecution was forthcoming.
The Palestine Solidarity Campaign has also recently compiled a “Lone Soldier” dossier of South Africans in the IDF updating the list as of 2024. There are still no prosecutions pending in South Africa. It seems that the National Prosecuting Authority, despite a lengthy passage of time to investigate the complaints filed, have not shown any indication of prosecuting any of the listed soldiers in the near future.
The unethical conduct and political ulterior motives of the pro-Palestinian ICJP organisation were unmasked dramatically in the English court. There is no better illustration of the moral bankruptcy and hatred of Israel of this organisation and many others that profess to care for Palestine than the sound and sober legal pronouncement in this case. Did the media and the shrill anti-Israel human rights voices take notice? It seems mum is the word when it comes to true justice for Palestine.