Pro-Palestine coalition condemns Hague ruling on Netherlands arms exports to Israel

Stating that it “finds that there is no reason to impose a total ban on the export of military and dual-use goods on the state [of Israel]”, the court ruled that “All claims are dismissed.”
The ruling has been condemned by the coalition of the 10 organisations, in which they stated in a joint press release issued by the European Legal Support Centre (ELSC) that although the court “acknowledged the Dutch State’s legal obligations under international law, including the duty to prevent genocide and protect human rights, it ultimately ruled in favour of the [Dutch] State.”
Netherlands Supreme Court advised to uphold Israel F-35 components export ban
While the coalition appreciated that Amsterdam’s “case-by-case approach underscores the State’s obligation to ensure its exports do not contribute to violations of international humanitarian law” through the use of offensive weapons and systems, the organisations insisted that “the risk remains—even for defensive military equipment” exported to Israel due to the fact that it can “enable further genocidal actions as well as maintaining and entrenching its illegal occupation and apartheid regime.”
Regarding the issue of the Netherlands’ trade with illegal Jewish-only settlements in the Occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, the joint statement highlighted the fact that the court had accepted the Dutch state’s ‘discouragement policy’ in that matter as “adequate, without evaluating its effectiveness”.
Noting that the court barely cited or acknowledged the Geneva Conventions and Genocide Convention in the ruling, which the organisations found “astounding”, the joint statement stressed that “exports – including indirect exports – should not be allowed. While the Dutch state says to agree with us on the risk associated with these exports, its policies do not reflect this understanding.”
The coalition also criticised the Dutch government for being contradictory, stating that it “acknowledges that the Occupation is illegal, yet continues military cooperation and allows trade with settlements, reinforcing the inconsistency between its legal stance and its actions.”