Two powerful but conflicting arguments are at the center of the Dutch Supreme Court case over F-35 parts for Israel: the pragmatic demands of geopolitics versus the absolute principles of justice.
The Dutch government is the champion of the geopolitical argument. Its lawyers assert that the Netherlands exists in a complex world of alliances and obligations. As a key partner in the U.S.-led F-35 program, it has a duty to facilitate the supply chain. They argue that a judicial ban is a naive move that ignores the reality that the U.S. would deliver the parts anyway, while only damaging Dutch diplomatic standing.
On the other side, arguing for justice, are the human rights groups. They contend that legal and moral principles are not negotiable, regardless of geopolitical inconvenience. Their position, which was supported by a lower appeals court, is that the Netherlands has a binding legal duty under international treaties to prevent its territory from being used to aid potential war crimes. For them, the principle matters more than the practical outcome.
The appeals court’s February 2024 decision to halt the shipments represented a victory for the justice-based argument. The court found the “clear risk” of violations of international law in Gaza was a legal fact that could not be ignored for political reasons.
Now, the Supreme Court must choose which argument prevails. Its ruling will be a profound statement on whether, in the eyes of Dutch law, the demands of international justice can compel a nation to act against its own perceived geopolitical interests.
