In one of the scariest moments in modern history, we're doing our best at ScheerPost to pierce the fog of lies that conceal it but we need some help to pay our writers and staff. Please consider a tax-deductible donation.
By Ana Vračar / Peoples Dispatch
In what could become a landmark ruling, a Belgian judge recently ordered the Flemish government to halt the transit of goods that could be used to continue or expand the genocide in Gaza. The decision follows a joint campaign by four organizations – Intal, Vredesactie (Peace Action), 11.11.11, and the Human Rights League – which was triggered by the discovery of containers in the port of Antwerp addressed to Israeli company Ashot Ashkelon Industries. The containers included materials used for the assembly of Merkava tanks, the same model implicated in the attack that killed six-year-old Hind Rajab.
The presence of these containers was brought to the attention of the organizations through links with investigative media outlets, Isabelle Vanbrabant, national coordinator of Intal, told Peoples Dispatch. Based on these alerts, Vredesactie initiated a formal inspection request and succeeded in detaining one container, though another was allowed to proceed. “We were doubtful about the effectiveness of a single inspection,” Vanbrabant says, noting activists feared the shipment might go unnoticed or that the inspection would impact only one case – despite knowing that Antwerp had previously been used to transport ammunition, and that similar cargo was en route aboard new vessels.
“We formed a coalition and contacted a lawyer. We had a solid case, so we decided to push further,” Vanbrabant explains. What followed was a swift but well-prepared legal campaign, which moved beyond a single shipment to challenge the broader conduct of Flemish authorities regarding military and dual-use exports to Israel. “We chose to argue that this wasn’t about one container, but about a wider pattern of the government allowing such cargo to pass through,” she said.
In a separate statement, Intal emphasized that facilitating the transit of military equipment to a country committing war crimes makes a government complicit. In this case, legal accountability involves both local and international law. Pledges made in 2009 explicitly state the region would not “issue arms export licenses that would strengthen the military capabilities of the warring parties” in occupied Palestine. Yet, as Vanbrabant describes, Flemish authorities have been, put mildly, pretty lax about implementing this line of policy towards Israel. “One of the key things this case proves is that having good-sounding legislation on paper isn’t enough,” she says. “You need to ensure it’s applied in practice, with proper oversight of the agencies involved.”
Implications for ongoing and future campaigns
While the judge criticized the government’s failure to follow domestic law, the ruling also leaned heavily on international legal standards. “That’s something new – and a very good development,” Vanbrabant stresses. “The government made no reference to international law. We did. This could set a real precedent for future arms transfer cases.”
Activists praised the court’s ruling as both thorough and principled. In addition to requiring the Flemish government to comply with its own regulations, the judge imposed financial penalties for possible violations: if similar cargo bound for Israel is discovered, the government will be fined €50,000 per container. Vanbrabant points out that, in the context of Europe’s push for rearmament and renewed austerity, the ruling might force the government to allocate additional resources to inspection agencies, currently underfunded and thus undercapacitated.
The ruling is also expected to influence ongoing and future campaigns in Belgium. There are already efforts underway challenging the country’s stance on arms shipments via its maritime and airspace. The organizations behind the Flemish case are also mobilizing against domestic and EU-level plans to weaken export controls under the ReArm Europe agenda. “What we achieved locally can be expanded,” Vanbrabant says. “This isn’t only about Palestine, it’s also about the broader arms export system.”
A tool that extends beyond the courts
The implications of the case are wide-ranging. “Legal action is becoming a growing tool [in the Palestine solidarity and anti-armament movements],” Vanbrabant notes. “But it goes beyond that.”
This is particularly relevant in the context of intensifying anti-militarization efforts across Europe and Intal’s wider work. “As a strong BDS partner and an organization that works on militarization more broadly, the issue of arms embargoes is central to us,” Vanbrabant adds. “In a way, it’s part of our DNA as an anti-imperialist group, the BDS campaign and the knowledge that genocide is only possible because of our governments’ complicity.”
The case is also expected to give a boost to the Palestine solidarity movement, which has faced constant repression in much of Europe. While the role of Antwerp port workers wasn’t as visible as that of logistics workers in Greece or France, who have repeatedly refused to load military cargo, this campaign provided an important opportunity for labor collectives to raise awareness and consult their members. Ultimately, as Vanbrabant emphasizes, the ruling proves that even without major resources, it’s possible to take on authorities – and win. The entire case was funded through small donations, showing widespread public support for the cause.
“There’s this belief that you have to be big and powerful to win,” she says. “But this proves it doesn’t have to be that way.”
Ana Vračar
Ana Vračar is an author at Peoples Dispatch.