Courts a realistic avenue for restricting Israel’s arms supply

A Dutch court on Friday rejected a bid by a group of pro-Palestinian organizations to halt the country’s arms exports to Israel. The group may appeal the ruling. Another Dutch court had in February ordered the government to halt the delivery of parts for F-35 fighter jets used by Israel in its bombardment of the Gaza Strip. This step, though some might think of it as being symbolic, was of great importance.

The Rights Forum, a human rights organization based in The Hague, teamed up with Oxfam Novib and PAX for Peace to bring the case against the Netherlands government for its arming of Israel during its ongoing genocide in Gaza. The group found that a Dutch company, Fokker, was producing three essential components for F-35 fighter jets. Several other Dutch companies were also producing components.

The appeals court sided with the plaintiff because it saw there was a “clear risk” that the parts the Netherlands was exporting were being used in “serious violations of international humanitarian law.” The Dutch state’s defense was that those parts were needed for Israel to defend itself. The court rejected all its claims.

The Rights Forum followed this lawsuit with another bid to prevent the indirect sale of those parts. This case is still in process. If it wins, then Israel will have no way to circumvent the verdict banning its deliveries. It is important to note that the parts are essential for the F-35’s functioning.

A Dutch group’s success sets a precedent for human rights groups and opens a new route for taming Israel

Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib

According to Gerard Jonkman, the head of the Rights Forum, its success sets a precedent for human rights groups and opens a new route for taming Israel. He said that human rights groups in Denmark and the UK are also suing their governments. This step also inspires the public. Jonkman thinks that the government does not really represent people’s aspirations. He added that the Dutch public is divided into three categories. About a third are indifferent, while there are twice as many who advocate restricting arms to Israel compared to those who support keeping the supply as it is or increasing it. Hence, by supporting Israel, the government is not complying with the people’s will.

There is increasing momentum regarding arms restrictions. The UK in September announced that it was suspending 30 of its 350 export licenses for arms to Israel. However, human right groups criticized the move as merely symbolic, as it does not include the UK-made parts for the F-35. Spain in November refused to allow two ships carrying weapons bound for Israel to dock in the port of Algeciras, while a Belgian minister supports an EU-wide ban on arms deliveries to Israel. Italy announced in January it had halted arms shipments in October 2023.

However, those actions are a mere drop in the ocean, as the main weapons provider to Israel is the US. Sixty-nine percent of Israel’s arms imports come from America. Until the US changes its stance and imposes an arms embargo on Israel, the latter will act with impunity. In addition to its ongoing genocide in Gaza and recent indiscriminate bombardment of south Lebanon, Israel last week conducted an incursion into southwest Syria and illegally occupied an area of 400 sq. km.

It is yet to be seen how this move will inspire human rights groups inside the US. The recent elections show that the pro-Israel lobby still has a grip over Congress. The current administration has taken a very pro-Israel stance despite President Joe Biden’s occasional criticism of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and paying of lip service to the Palestinians.

However, those actions are a mere drop in the ocean, as the main weapons provider to Israel is the US

Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib

Even when the Biden administration in October gave an ultimatum to Netanyahu regarding Israel’s blocking of aid, it did not follow through on its threat to restrict the supply of weapons. After the 30-day grace period expired, the US decided to keep sending arms, even though various human right organizations insisted that Israel was still preventing aid from reaching Palestinians in Gaza. Ultimately, the entire issue was an election stunt designed to appeal to the left, rather than a genuine intent by the US to tame Israel’s behavior. The incoming Trump administration, judging by the president-elect’s Cabinet picks, may well take an even more pro-Israel stance than its predecessor.

In the Netherlands, the government is quite pro-Israel, which is why the Rights Forum believed it would face an uphill battle. It went to the courts. Its journey can inspire human rights groups in the US. As the route via Congress seems very difficult for now, they might use the courts to impose arms restrictions on Israel. This can be very efficient in the US, which is a country focused on the separation of powers. The courts are not influenced by the pro-Israel lobby as much as the members of Congress, who face regular elections and need donors’ money to fund their expensive and highly competitive campaigns.

According to Jonkman, even those who opposed his organization’s action were quite beneficial to it. Despite their opposition, they brought the issue into the public discourse and contributed to increasing the awareness of Israel’s violations of human rights. The group also raised awareness of the possible avenues to fight this injustice. The more injustice increases, the more people will find avenues to fight it.

• Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib is a specialist in US-Arab relations with a focus on lobbying. She is co-founder of the Research Center for Cooperation and Peace Building, a Lebanese nongovernmental organization focused on Track II.