“Meaningless” Ban or Moral Imperative? Dutch Supreme Court Hears Dueling Views on F-35 Parts

Is a Dutch ban on F-35 parts for Israel a “meaningless” gesture or a moral and legal imperative? This is the central question before the Netherlands’ Supreme Court as it hears the government’s appeal to resume the controversial shipments.
The government’s legal team has argued that any prohibition imposed by a Dutch court would be purely symbolic and ultimately ineffective. They contend that because the parts are owned by the United States, Washington would simply reroute the supplies through one of the other global warehouses, ensuring Israel’s F-35 fleet remains operational. This pragmatic argument suggests the ban does more to disrupt alliances than to impact the conflict.
Conversely, the human rights groups that brought the case, and the appeals court that sided with them, see the issue as a fundamental moral and legal duty. For them, the effectiveness of the ban is secondary to the principle that the Netherlands must not be complicit in actions that risk violating international humanitarian law. They argue the state has an obligation to act, regardless of what other countries might do.
This clash of worldviews was sharpened by the February 2024 appeals court ruling, which ordered a halt to the exports. That decision prioritized the “clear risk” of misuse over the government’s geopolitical concerns. Now, the Supreme Court must weigh these dueling perspectives.
The context of the devastating war in Gaza, which has killed over 66,200 Palestinians, provides a somber backdrop to the debate. The court’s ruling will be a definitive statement on whether pragmatic geopolitics can override legal obligations designed to protect civilians in wartime.