‘I was low-hanging fruit’: IDF reservist targeted by UK legal group sees case collapse in court

“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,” Mutahir Ahmed, the ICJP’s legal chief, said at the time.

“War criminals must be held accountable for their role in the genocide, from the most senior generals to the most junior foot soldier,” Ahmed added.

Despite all their intentions, the prosecution’s attempt failed dramatically in the Magistrates’ Court.

Senior District Judge Paul Goldspring of Westminster Magistrates’ Court ruled on April 8, 2026, that the ICJP’s application was “fundamentally misconceived in law,” as the FEA does not apply to dual nationals.

“For a dual national, service in the armed forces of his other state of nationality is not ‘foreign enlistment’ in any meaningful sense,” Goldspring wrote in his decision.

The judge also unleashed a damning polemic against the legal team behind the ICJP attempt, calling it “egregious” and legally “inadmissible.” Then, on June 19, Goldspring ruled that the ICJP must pay legal costs to Soldier A, the exact amount of which will be decided later.

“We thought, let’s not try and get out on a technicality. When it comes to these types of cases, let’s try to destroy this whole act in and of itself, which is exactly what [barristers] Peter Wright KC, Natasha Hausdorff, and Dan Berke did. So I’m very happy,” they continued.

“Private prosecutors have a duty to conduct themselves to the highest standard. The ICJP did not. They failed to disclose vital information to the court,” Berke said.

The ICJP excluded information such as “statements by ministers from successive governments confirming that dual nationals may serve in the armed forces of their other nationality, including Israelis in the IDF,” he said.

According to Berke, “They failed to disclose that their ‘expert’ belonged to an ICJP WhatsApp group and was clearly partisan. The seriousness of their conduct was marked by the judge ordering that they pay Soldier A’s costs.”

Soldier A, in fact, said he would have been happy to go to court over the case, adding that, in some ways, he was disappointed that the ICJP didn’t appeal Goldspring’s ruling, as then it would have been expedited to a higher court and “could have set a precedent.”

“In my case, they lost entirely, but in theory, they could litigate this with somebody else. So I wish they had appealed it and then we could have taken it to the High Court and set a precedent,” Soldier A said.

Berke, however, said that he was not surprised the ICJP did not appeal, noting that “the judgment was so strong, they must have known that if they were to appeal this, the High Court would likely have been just as scathing and the cost implications would have been even more severe.”

“I made it too easy for them in like ... a naive way,” they said. “I had pictures online from 2014 and videos of me asking for donations for the army.”

“So they weren’t looking to get me on war crimes because there was no way they could get me on war crimes. But with this act, with the Foreign Enlistment Act, I could have been doing any job in the army, like shredding paper or cooking food.”

Berke concurred, calling Soldier A “a low-hanging fruit.”

“Under the UK’s FEA, it was not necessary to show that a soldier had been involved in any alleged war crimes; simply joining a foreign army at war with a country with which Britain is at peace would have sufficed,” he said.

“The prosecution was therefore able to target any British national, in any role. It could have been a cook or a medic,” Berke said.

“As a matter of fact, Israel was not at war with Lebanon or the alleged state of Palestine; rather, as the judge ruled, Israel was in an armed conflict with Hamas and Hezbollah, terrorist groups which Britain proscribes,” he added.

“The way I see it, they’re not looking really to throw people in prison,” Soldier A said.

“It’s about getting a million news articles about it, getting the publicity. That’s really what they’re looking for, which is what really pissed off the judge. He was like, ‘Don’t use my court for political agendas,’” they continued.

This is, in fact, what Goldspring ruled.

In his April ruling, the judge said he believed that the ICJP’s “dominant motive” was not the pursuit of justice for a specific criminal act, “but rather the advancement of a political and ideological agenda.”

“The courts must not be used as a vehicle for political debate or to ‘expose’ individuals for alleged wrongdoing which falls outside the scope of criminal law in order 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,” Goldspring said.

Soldier A’s advice to other lone soldiers or soldiers with dual nationality is: “Don’t be stupid and post stuff online; It’ll come back to bite you.”

“Be very careful with social media, or it’ll come back to bite you when you fly to Australia, or France, or Spain to go on holiday, and you get arrested at the airport for war crimes,” they advised.

“I’ve been in military reserve duty for almost 700 days. I can’t imagine pulling out my phone to live stream on Instagram or post pictures,” Soldier A said.

“It’s just the stupidest thing that you could possibly think about doing. Besides the fact that it could come back to you legally, you’re giving the enemy live information that could compromise you,” they continued.

Regarding whether the ICJP may seek to bring a similar prosecution against other soldiers, Berke said that in that case, “in accordance with the duty of candor that has now been made abundantly clear to them, it would be incumbent upon them to disclose this judgment to any other court.”

The ICJP would have no choice but to do this “so that the judge could be aware of this previous attempt and the way in which they conducted themselves,” he said.

It is relatively common for anti-Israel legal advocacy groups to attempt to use soldiers’ own footage to prosecute them.

In fact, this is the organization Hind Rajab Foundation’s (HRF) main body of work. It takes pictures and videos of IDF soldiers in conflict zones, then files arrest requests or crime complaints with local justice systems as soon as these soldiers travel abroad.

For example, last month, the HRF filed a complaint with Dutch authorities against a young Israeli sergeant in the “Zion” company of the Netzah Yehuda 97th Battalion.

According to the organization, the young man was involved in the destruction of the Palace of Justice, otherwise known as the Palestinian Supreme Court complex in Gaza.

The organization claimed this was a deliberate destruction of a civilian building. It described the event as a war crime.

HRF’s main evidence consisted of videos that it said the young man himself posted on Instagram in January 2024.

In one of these videos, a voice can be heard saying, “We will reach their court ... We are everywhere,” and in another, a controlled demolition of the building is shown. For its part, the IDF said that the building was used as Hamas infrastructure.

The group claims to have filed more than 80 complaints against IDF veterans since the beginning of 2026, with their goal being to target the ability of Israelis to “move freely.”

In response to this case, UK Lawyers For Israel has set up a hotline to help ensure that any IDF soldier or veteran who is detained coming into the UK, or who faces arrest, investigation, or prosecution, can receive specialist legal support and representation.0