For three Dutch human rights groups, the legal battle to stop the export of F-35 parts to Israel is a matter of fundamental principle. Their case, now being heard by the Supreme Court, argues that the Netherlands cannot ignore its obligations under international law, even when faced with complex foreign policy considerations.
The organizations contend that the Dutch state’s involvement, through a key logistics hub for F-35 parts, makes it directly complicit in the devastating consequences of Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. They point to the more than 66,200 Palestinian deaths reported by Gaza’s Health Ministry as undeniable evidence of the need for action.
Their legal efforts yielded a major victory in February 2024, when an appeals court sided with them and ordered a halt to the shipments. The court’s ruling validated their core argument, finding a “clear risk” that the F-35s were being used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law.
The Dutch government, however, views the issue through a different lens. It appealed the ban, asserting that foreign policy and national security are matters for the executive branch to decide. It also maintains that a Dutch embargo would be ineffective, as the parts are owned by the U.S. and could be supplied from other locations.
This clash of principles—upholding international law versus maintaining sovereign control over foreign policy—is what the Supreme Court must now resolve. The outcome will be a powerful statement about whether legal and moral obligations can compel a government to act against its stated foreign policy interests.
