“Meaningless” Ban or Moral Imperative? Dutch Court to Decide on F-35 Parts

Is a ban on F-35 parts to Israel a “meaningless” gesture, as the Dutch government claims, or a moral and legal imperative, as human rights groups insist? The Netherlands’ Supreme Court is set to provide the definitive answer in its ruling on the government’s appeal.
The government’s argument of futility is central to its case. It contends that because the parts are U.S.-owned, a Dutch ban would not stop them from reaching Israel. Therefore, it argues, the ban is a purely symbolic act with potentially negative diplomatic consequences.
The human rights groups counter that upholding the law is never meaningless. They argue that the Netherlands has a duty to ensure its own hands are clean and to send a clear signal that it will not be complicit in alleged war crimes, regardless of what other countries do.
An appeals court sided with the moral imperative argument in February 2024, imposing the ban. The government’s appeal is a final attempt to persuade the judiciary to adopt its more pragmatic, realpolitik perspective.
The Supreme Court’s decision will be a profound statement on the nature of legal and moral responsibility in a complex, interconnected world. The ruling comes as the Gaza war continues to force nations to confront difficult questions about their role in international conflicts.