A British court has dismissed an 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, dealing a blow to increasing efforts by anti-Israel groups to bring criminal cases against Israeli soldiers through European national courts.

Last week, Paul Goldspring, chief magistrate of England and Wales, ruled that the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians’ (ICJP) interpretation of British law was “fundamentally flawed” after the anti-Israel legal group sought to prosecute an Israeli soldier 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.

Last year, the ICJP formally initiated legal proceedings against the Israeli reservist, alleging that his voluntary military service violated Britain’s Foreign Enlistment Act — 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.

If successful, the case would have set a precedent under British law 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’s legal chief Mutahir Ahmed 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,” he continued.

In rejecting ICJP’s argument, 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.

The court also ruled that 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.

After dismissing the case, Goldspring warned that accepting ICJP’s argument could have criminalized British citizens serving in the armed forces of other countries including India, Pakistan, and Cyprus.

“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.

He also called the ICJP’s application “egregious” and legally “inadmissible,” ordering the anti-Israel group to cover the defendant’s legal costs, with the amount to be determined at a later date.

In a previous ruling, Goldspring said he believed the ICJP’s case appeared to be driven less by the pursuit of justice and more by “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,” he said at the time.