On October 3, 2025, the Dutch Supreme Court delivered a decision that has reverberated far beyond the Netherlands’ borders, ordering the government to reassess its currently suspended license for exporting parts for F-35 fighter jets to Israel. This ruling, which comes at a time of intense scrutiny over arms exports and international humanitarian law, has reignited debate over the Netherlands’ role in the ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.
The case at the heart of the ruling began in late 2023, when three Dutch rights groups filed a civil suit arguing that the export of F-35 parts made the Netherlands complicit in potential war crimes committed by Israel during its military campaign in Gaza. According to reporting by the Associated Press, the district court in The Hague initially rejected the ban, but in February 2024, an appeals panel sided with the rights groups and ordered the Dutch government to halt shipments of F-35 parts to Israel. The appeals court cited a “clear risk of violations of international law” as its rationale—a decision that led the Dutch government to suspend the exports and appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on Friday, October 3, overturned the lower court’s ban and clarified the boundaries of judicial and executive authority in matters of foreign policy. Vice-President Martijn Polak, speaking for the court, stated, “The Court of Appeal may not assess for itself whether granting the permit constitutes a clear risk of serious violation of international humanitarian law. That is up to the minister.” The judgment gives the government six weeks to reassess the license, with the export suspension remaining in place during this period.
Polak also emphasized that, “If the minister decides during the reassessment there is a clear risk that the exported goods will be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law, he may no longer permit the use of the permit.” This places the onus squarely on Dutch ministers to weigh the risks and make a decision that could have significant diplomatic and ethical implications.
Foreign Minister David van Weel welcomed the ruling, stating he would make a decision within the allotted six weeks. However, he suggested that, “given the current situation” in Gaza, it was unlikely exports would resume. This sentiment was echoed by Michiel Servaes, director of Oxfam Novib, one of the rights groups involved in the case, who said, “We haven’t been proven right on all counts, but far more importantly, the minister’s mandatory reassessment can only have one outcome: The export ban will remain in place.”
The timing of the Supreme Court’s decision is notable. Not only does it coincide with Israel’s ongoing offensive against Hamas in Gaza, but it also comes just weeks before Dutch national elections scheduled for October 29, 2025. The Netherlands is currently governed by a caretaker administration, adding another layer of uncertainty to the decision-making process.
The broader context is equally fraught. The war in Gaza erupted on October 7, 2023, when Hamas militants and others stormed into Israel, killing approximately 1,200 people—mostly civilians—and taking about 250 hostages. Since then, Israel’s military campaign has killed more than 66,200 Palestinians and wounded nearly 170,000 others, according to Gaza’s Health Ministry. The ministry, which is part of the Hamas-run government, does not distinguish between civilian and militant casualties, but has stated that women and children make up about half the dead. United Nations agencies and independent experts generally consider these figures to be the most reliable available estimates of wartime casualties.
Israel, for its part, vehemently denies committing war crimes in Gaza. The use of F-35 fighter jets—highly advanced aircraft supplied through a network of international partners—has become a focal point for activists and legal experts concerned about the potential for serious violations of international humanitarian law. The Netherlands is home to one of three regional warehouses for U.S.-owned F-35 parts. These parts are stored in a Dutch facility and shipped to several partners, including Israel, via existing export agreements.
Government lawyers have argued that a Dutch ban on transfers would be largely symbolic, as the United States could deliver the parts directly to Israel if necessary. Dutch authorities have also raised questions about whether they even have the power to intervene in deliveries, given that the operation is U.S.-run and supplies all F-35 partners. “It was not clear whether [Dutch authorities] even had the power to intervene in the deliveries,” noted the court summary, reflecting the complex web of international agreements underpinning the F-35 program.
The Dutch case is not occurring in isolation. Several other European countries have taken steps to restrict or scrutinize arms exports to Israel amid the ongoing conflict. In August 2025, Slovenia announced a ban on the import, export, and transit of all weapons to and from Israel, calling it the first such move by a European Union member. Last year, the United Kingdom suspended exports of some weapons to Israel over concerns they could be used in breaches of international law. Spain says it halted arms sales to Israel in October 2023. France and Belgium are also facing court cases related to weapons trade with Israel. In June, the High Court in London rejected a legal challenge from a Palestinian rights group seeking to block Britain from supplying F-35 parts to Israel.
The Dutch Supreme Court’s decision underscores the tension between judicial oversight and executive authority in foreign policy—a theme echoed in similar legal battles across Europe. The ruling makes clear that, while courts can insist on rigorous reassessment in light of international law, the final call rests with the government. The Supreme Court wrote, “The Minister must reassess the license based on that criterion,” referring to the risk of serious violations of international humanitarian law.
For rights groups and many in the international community, the stakes are high. The Netherlands’ position as a logistical hub for F-35 parts places it at the heart of a global debate over arms exports and accountability. As the government undertakes its six-week reassessment, all eyes will be on The Hague to see whether the export ban remains in place or if diplomatic and defense priorities prevail.
With the political landscape in flux and the humanitarian crisis in Gaza intensifying, the Dutch government’s forthcoming decision will not only shape its own legacy but could also influence the broader European and international approach to arms exports and conflict accountability.
