The Court of Appeal in The Hague has concluded that there is a serious risk Israel is committing genocide in Gaza and violating international humanitarian law. The Dutch State’s obligation to take measures to prevent “(further) genocide” would be “of little practical use” if the Netherlands had to wait for the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to issue a final ruling on the matter. This was the court’s ruling today in the case brought by a coalition of ten Dutch and Palestinian organisations against the Dutch State.

However, this ruling does not mean that the coalition’s claims have been upheld by the court. The court states that it is primarily up to the State to assess what measures should be taken to prevent genocide, and that the State has considerable discretion in this regard.

That discretion is not unlimited, though. “The Dutch court ruled that the Genocide Convention must be taken into account and that, in specific instances, the court may assess whether the State breached its duty of care by failing to take certain measures. This is an important precedent”, says Lydia de Leeuw of SOMO, one of the plaintiffs in the case. In specific cases, the court ruled, the judge can assess whether the State is acting in violation of the duty of care by failing to take certain measures.

The three Palestinian organisations that are part of the coalition, Al-Haq, Al Mezan, and PCHR, say they acknowledge and welcome the assessment that there is a clear risk Israel is already committing genocide in Gaza, and that the Netherlands cannot wait for the ICJ’s final judgment before taking action to prevent, in the court’s words, “(further) genocide”. “While the Dutch court did not grant our demands, claiming that they undermine Dutch separation of powers, its affirmation of the risk of genocide in Gaza further affirms the Dutch State’s obligation to end its complicity in international crimes against the Palestinian people”, the organisations say.

The Court of Appeal in The Hague rejected the coalition’s claim to revoke existing arms export licenses. The court ruled that the coalition had not demonstrated that the licences had been granted unjustly. The court also pointed out that some of the weapons for which export licences have been granted can also be used for defensive purposes.

“It is incorrect to distinguish between defensive and offensive use”, says Minke Gommer of the Brandeis law firm, which handled the case on behalf of the coalition. “The only test when granting or rejecting an export license is whether there is a clear risk that the weapons could be used to facilitate or commit human rights violations.”

Furthermore, the reasons for granting licences are not made public. Nor is there any oversight of the assessment of those licenses. In fact, one must trust that the State will carry out the assessments correctly. In a similar case, the Belgian court ruled that Belgium “cannot shift its treaty obligations to a group of vigilant citizens.” However, that is exactly what the Dutch State can do now. “The licencing policy for Dutch arms exports is shrouded in secrecy”, says Lydia de Leeuw of SOMO.

In this case, the court was bound by the Dutch Supreme Court’s ruling of 3 October 2025 in the F-35 case. In that ruling, the Supreme Court also emphasised that the court must exercise restraint when assessing government policy.

With regard to the export of dogs trained by Dutch police dog companies to Israel and trade with settlements, the court also leaves it to the State to decide what measures it takes to prevent human rights violations by Israel.

The coalition remains committed to holding the Dutch State accountable. The involved Palestinian organisations expressed: “We will not be deterred in our mission to pursue justice and hold all those responsible for violations committed against the Palestinian people to account.”

The case against the State was brought in October 2024 by a coalition consisting of Al-Haq, Al Mezan, Palestinian Center for Human Rights, and Dutch organizations Een Ander Joods Geluid (EAJG), European Legal Support Center (ELSC), Groningen Jabalya, Nederlands Palestina Komitee, SOMO (Stichting Onderzoek Multinationale Ondernemingen), Stichting Kifaia, and Stichting Palestina. The coalition of organizations receives legal and research support from external experts Floor Knoote and Ron Rosenhart.

Join our crowdfunding campaign

To sustain this historic legal fight, we urgently need your support. For the initial stages of this case, we raised nearly €35,000. Legal cases of this scale are expensive, and we need to raise an additional €50,000 to cover lawyers’ fees, court costs, and the resources needed to see this case through the appeal stage and beyond. Make a donation here
.