On October 3, 2025, the Dutch Supreme Court delivered a landmark ruling that has sent ripples through the corridors of European politics, the international defense industry, and human rights organizations alike. The court ordered the Dutch government to conduct a comprehensive reevaluation of its suspended license for exporting parts of the F-35 fighter jet to Israel, a move that underscores the growing global scrutiny over arms exports to conflict zones.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, developed by Lockheed Martin, is no ordinary piece of military hardware. It is a symbol of cutting-edge technology, boasting stealth capabilities, advanced sensors, and multi-role adaptability—making it a prized asset for modern militaries, including Israel’s. Since 2016, Israel has integrated the F-35 into its military operations, a fact that has not escaped the attention of human rights advocates who worry about the jet’s potential use in civilian-heavy conflict zones.
The legal journey to this moment began in late 2023, when three Dutch rights groups, including Stop Wapenhandel and Oxfam Novib, filed a civil case against the Dutch government. Their argument was straightforward yet profound: by exporting F-35 parts, the Netherlands risked complicity in possible war crimes committed during Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. The case wound its way through the courts, with an appeals panel in The Hague ordering the government in February 2024 to halt the shipments, citing a clear risk of violations of international law.
That decision was not the final word. The government, arguing that foreign policy decisions were the purview of the executive branch rather than the courts, appealed to the Supreme Court. The highest court’s verdict, delivered by Vice-President Martijn Polak, struck a nuanced balance. While it ruled that the appeals court had overstepped its authority by imposing a ban, it also emphasized that the Minister must reassess the license “based on the criterion” of whether there is a clear risk of serious violations of international humanitarian law.
For now, the export suspension remains firmly in place while the government undertakes this reassessment. Foreign Minister David van Weel welcomed the clarity provided by the ruling and committed to reaching a decision within six weeks. However, he hinted that, “given the current situation” in Gaza, it was unlikely the exports would resume any time soon.
That “current situation” is nothing short of tragic. Since the war erupted on October 7, 2023—when Hamas militants stormed into Israel, killing about 1,200 people and taking around 250 hostages—Israel’s military response in Gaza has been devastating. According to Gaza’s Health Ministry, more than 66,200 Palestinians have been killed and nearly 170,000 wounded. The ministry, part of the Hamas-run government, does not distinguish between civilians and militants, but states that women and children make up about half the dead. U.N. agencies and many independent experts consider these figures the most reliable estimates of wartime casualties, even as Israel denies committing war crimes in its campaign.
Human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have repeatedly documented violence and civilian casualties linked to Israeli military operations. Their reports have intensified calls for arms embargoes and have placed countries like the Netherlands in the global spotlight, forcing them to reconcile defense partnerships with commitments to international law and human rights.
The Netherlands is no stranger to tough decisions on arms exports. In 2018, for example, the Dutch government suspended arms sales to Saudi Arabia over the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, demonstrating a willingness to prioritize human rights over commercial or strategic interests. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), global military spending exceeded $2 trillion in 2021, a statistic that highlights the urgent need for robust regulation of arms exports—especially to countries embroiled in conflict.
The Dutch reevaluation process will not take place in a vacuum. The Netherlands hosts one of only three regional warehouses for U.S.-owned F-35 parts, making it a key logistical hub in the global F-35 supply chain. Dutch government lawyers have argued that a ban on transfers from the Netherlands could be rendered moot, as the United States could simply deliver the parts directly. Nonetheless, the symbolic and political weight of Dutch participation—or lack thereof—remains significant.
This court ruling has also arrived at a moment of political transition in the Netherlands, with national elections scheduled for October 29 and the current government in caretaker mode. Domestic reactions have been mixed, reflecting the country’s broader debate over national security and human rights. Some lawmakers warn that restricting exports could undermine Israel’s security, while others insist that upholding international humanitarian standards is non-negotiable. Public opinion is similarly divided, with many Dutch citizens supporting stricter controls to ensure that their country’s military exports do not contribute to human rights abuses.
Michiel Servaes, director of Oxfam Novib, summed up the feelings of many rights advocates: “We are disappointed that 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 Dutch decision is part of a wider European reckoning with arms exports to Israel. In recent years, other EU countries have taken action: the UK suspended some weapons exports to Israel, Spain halted arms sales in October 2023, and in a largely symbolic move, Slovenia banned all weapons trade with Israel in August 2025. Court cases are also ongoing in France and Belgium over similar issues. These moves reflect a growing consensus in parts of Europe that military support for Israel must be weighed against the risk of facilitating breaches of international law.
International law provides the backbone for these debates. The United Nations Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), ratified by the Netherlands, obliges signatory states to assess whether arms exports could contribute to human rights violations. The European Union’s Common Position on Arms Exports sets further criteria, requiring member states to consider the risk of exported weapons being used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law. The Dutch government’s upcoming reevaluation will be guided by these legal frameworks.
The economic stakes are not insignificant. The defense industry is a major contributor to the Dutch economy, and companies like Lockheed Martin, which depend on a complex international supply chain, will be watching closely. Any prolonged suspension or cancellation of export licenses could have knock-on effects for jobs and future contracts, prompting discussions about how to balance economic interests with ethical obligations.
As the Dutch government prepares its reassessment, the world is watching. The outcome could set a precedent for other European countries, potentially reshaping the landscape of arms exports and raising the bar for accountability in international military transactions. For now, the F-35 parts will stay grounded, pending a decision that will test the Netherlands’ resolve to stand at the crossroads of security, commerce, and conscience.
