The ten organisations are of the opinion that the foreign policy of the State regarding Israel is manifestly unlawful. According to them, the State is neglecting its duty to prevent genocide and grave violations of human rights in Gaza and the other occupied territories, by supplying weapons to Israel, by allowing trade with Israeli companies and people in the occupied territories by failing to prevail upon other countries to take action against Israel. According to the organisations, the State is not fulfilling its obligations under international law. The organisations have brought various claims to put an end to the alleged unlawful act of the State.

For example, the organisations demand the establishment of an effective ban on the export/transit of weapons, weapon parts and so-called dual-use goods to Israel or via other countries to Israel. Dual-use goods are goods originally used in civil industry, but can also have a military application. In addition, the organisations demand that the State stops all military cooperation with Israel, refrains from concluding a Defence Treaty with Israel and a ban on trade contacts with Israel. Finally, they demand that the State is ordered to prosecute Dutch people or (legal) persons residing in the Netherlands who (may) have contributed to violations of the law of war in Gaza. 

The State contests acting unlawfully and has extensively explained its policy regarding Israel. 

The interim relief court stated first and foremost that the State in principle has assessment and policy leeway and that the court must review the State's policy choices with restraint in interim relief proceedings.

The interim relief court finds that there is no reason to impose a total ban on the export of military and dual-use goods on the State. The State has an obligation under international law to assess on a case-by-case basis whether the export of such goods is permissible on the basis of applicable regulations. In doing so, the State assesses whether there is a clear risk that the goods could be used by Israel in a way that could lead to a violation of the humanitarian law of war. If this risk exists, export is refused. The court finds that the State is fulfilling that obligation. Recently, an application for export has been regularly refused. The State indicates that it is unlikely that that the State will issue a licence for weapons which can contribute to activities of Israel in Gaza or on the Westbank. It has also not become plausible that licences are currently in place that the State should have refused.

Furthermore, the court finds that the State cannot be obliged to announce a full embargo on the export of military goods. Israel has the right to protect its own territory. So, there is every reason to distinguish between the supply of military goods which can be used in attacks on the Palestinian people and goods which can exclusively be used for the defence of Israel's own territory.  

Military contacts with Israel are also carefully assessed by the State. There is no Defence Treaty. The Status Treaty with Israel is now under review by the Senate. It will have to decide on the approval act. The interim relief court has no role in this in the context of the separation of powers.

The requested ban on trade contacts with Israel is also dismissed. The interim relief court ruled that it has not become plausible that the State's current trade policy is manifestly unlawful. The State pursues a policy of discouragement. This is aimed at informing companies about the illegal status of the occupied territories and thus helping them to ensure that they do not inadvertently become involved in human rights violations in the occupied territories. In addition, measures are being taken at EU level to prevent undesirable trade with (parties in) the occupied territories. In addition, measures are being taken at EU level to prevent undesirable trade with (parties in) the occupied territories. 

The court also dismisses the demand of the organisations to order the State to prosecute Dutch people or (legal) persons residing in the Netherlands who have (possibly) contributed to violations of the law of war in Gaza. The decision whether or not to prosecute is reserved to the Netherlands Public Prosecution Service.