Israeli soldiers fire mortar shells towards targets in the Gaza Strip near the Israeli border with the Gaza Strip, February 8, 2024. (Photo: Chaim Goldberg/Flash90)
A court case attempting to block weapon exports from Germany to Israel was decisively dismissed by the Administrative Court in Frankfurt on Monday, German media reported. The ruling may provide a strong precedent for similar attempts to shut down weapon transfers to Israel in the future.
The urgent application was filed by a group of five Palestinians from Gaza, supported by several anti-Israel organizations, some of which are designated as terrorist groups. This legal action is part of a broader trend in which Palestinian and anti-Israel groups use “lawfare” to target the State of Israel.
The application specifically tried to halt the export of German-produced tank gears, and several other parts, by Germany’s Federal Office of Economics and Export Control.
The main plaintiff, a resident of the Gaza Strip who says he lost his wife and daughter in Israeli airstrikes, argued that the German weapons were endangering lives in Gaza.
Germany is among Israel’s largest weapon suppliers, having sold weapons worth over $350 million to Israel in 2023. According to the research institute SIPRI, 30% of Israel’s major arms imports between 2019 and 2023 came from Germany.
The applicants were supported by several groups exhibiting strong anti-Israel bias, German-based lawyer Wolf Reuter described in a thread on 𝕏. The first group is the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, a Berlin-based NGO, which Reuter said gained attention through “Gaza-lawfare.”
The second group is the Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR), which, according to an NGO monitor, “is a leader in anti-Israel lawfare campaigns, ignores the existence of terrorism against Israeli civilians, and presents a distorted version of the conflict based only on the Palestinian narrative.”
PCHR has also been linked to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror group.
The next group listed as a supporter by the court is “al-Haq,” a Gaza-based group that is designated by Israel as a “terror organization” because it is part of “a network of organizations” that operates on behalf of the PFLP terror group.
Thirdly is the Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, several of whose employees have been identified as members of both the PFLP and Hamas.
The written court ruling included several other interesting aspects, noting that “…it has neither been stated nor is it otherwise apparent that the five applicants belong to a vulnerable population group that is exposed to dangers from the war in Gaza that go beyond the catastrophic level to which all people there are exposed. They are all apparently uninjured, middle-aged working men who are better placed to seek protection from fighting in Gaza than other groups.”
The ruling begins by pointing out that Israel’s military operations in Gaza followed Hamas’ invasion and massacre of Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
“Whether Israel’s actions violate the principles of (humanitarian) international law is controversial at the international level and is the subject of proceedings before the International Court of Justice,” the court noted, thus denying arguments that the ICJ case, which hasn’t yet reached a verdict, proves that Israel is committing “genocide.”
The ruling also stresses that war can be justified, despite endangering civilians, and that this, in itself, doesn’t make Germany’s decision to supply Israel with arms illegal.
“The fact that the acts of war … can endanger the applicants is inherent in every armed conflict in densely populated areas such as Gaza, and was taken into account in the [Germany’s] political considerations.”
Finally, the court rejected arguments solely based on UN reports without further investigation, emphasizing their potential anti-Israel bias.
“The United Nations and its sub-organizations have in the past shown a controversial approach in dealing with the Middle East conflict.”
“Israel-related statements by UN bodies such as the report ‘Anatomy of a Genocide’ of March 25, 2024, by the UN Special Reporter… Francesca Albanese, cited by the applicants, cannot be used as a basis for the accusation of violations of international law in the context of an expedited procedure without closer, intensive examination,” the court wrote.
Summing up, Reuter dubbed the court case “An old PLO strategy.”
“Because Israel cannot be defeated on the battlefield, its support must be eroded. In Germany, of course, this can only be done – with a powerful gesture of self-righteousness – in German courts. If you then end up in the newspaper.”
“The Frankfurt Administrative Court has dealt this ‘a cold shower,’” he added.
We recommend to read: