In July 2025, four Belgian civil society organisations won a significant interim ruling against the Flemish government. The Brussels Court of First Instance ordered it to halt the transit to Israel of defence-related products and other goods suitable for military use unless there was firm assurance that they would be used exclusively for lawful civilian purposes. The case centred on tapered roller bearings being shipped through the port of Antwerp to an Israeli defence manufacturer.
The ruling followed action by Vredesactie, 11.11.11, INTAL and the League for Human Rights after campaigners traced several containers carrying components bound for Ashot Ashkelon Industries, which supplies transmission systems for Israeli military vehicles. Rather than demanding new laws, the coalition argued that the Flemish government had failed to enforce its existing arms-trade and licensing rules.
The court agreed that the specific shipment was prima facie likely to be intended for military vehicles and noted that no transit licence had been sought. It ordered the government to prevent similar shipments unless lawful civilian use could be assured and imposed a penalty of €50,000 for every transit that breached the order, up to a maximum of €5 million. Campaigners say the decision has created a de facto embargo on military transit through Flanders to Israel – and offers a model for civil society groups elsewhere seeking to hold governments accountable over arms transfers.
In this interview, Jo Dirix, a campaigner with Vredesactie, explains how the coalition traced the shipments, built public support, raised legal funds and won in court – and why the campaign shows that when governments fail to act, civil society can force them to.
This article is part of a new openDemocracy series spotlighting how people’s movements organise, innovate and win. It was originally published by CIVICUS Lens, the media platform of the global civil society alliance CIVICUS, and is republished with permission.
What prompted your legal action and how did the court respond?
Trusted sources and investigative journalists alerted us that four containers carrying military goods, mostly parts for tanks, were being shipped through the port of Antwerp to Israel. Each container had a unique shipping code that could be used to trace its origin, route and destination. We discovered they’d been sent by the French arms manufacturer Timken to Ashot Ashkelon Industries, an Israeli supplier of its national military. One of the containers included parts for Merkava tanks, actively being used in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.
Since the containers were being shipped unchecked, without companies applying for licences, we filed a complaint with customs officials. Only then did they intervene and stop at least one container. However, even after intense public pressure, the Flemish government stalled and refused to be transparent about the intervention of customs officials. After customs officials intervened, the authorities still allowed another container to pass through the port. That’s when we knew legal action was the only option left.
We weren’t demanding new laws; we just wanted the existing ones enforced. We mobilised, lobbied, went to court and won. Within a month, the court had ruled that the Flemish government had violated its 2009 Arms Trade Decree, which bans arms exports where there is a serious risk of human rights violations. This risk is undeniable in Israel’s ongoing assault on Gaza. The court’s decision was just as clear: these shipments must stop.
What makes this ruling significant nationally and internationally?
What makes this ruling so powerful is its enforcement mechanism. The judge imposed a fine of €50,000 (approx. US$58,000) for every future violation, payable directly to the four CSOs that brought the case: 11.11.11, INTAL, the League for Human Rights and Vredesactie. It forces the Flemish government to follow its laws, with real financial consequences if it fails to do so. In practice, this creates a de facto arms embargo from Flanders to Israel.
The case also revealed the total lack of oversight in arms transit. It showed that in several cases customs didn’t request permits or check the shipments. This systemic negligence has now been exposed and should no longer be possible.
This ruling sends a strong message: when governments fail to enforce their laws, civil society can – and will – step in. The Flemish government has said it might appeal the decision, but public pressure is shifting the political landscape.
Parties such as the Christian Democrats and Social Democrats are already losing support over their silence on Gaza, and we believe the political cost of appealing would be too high. Public pressure is working and it’s pushing the government to change its stance.
The ruling also has implications beyond Belgium. The judge based her decision not only on Flemish law, but also on international treaties including the Geneva Conventions and the Arms Trade Treaty. This means it can be used as a legal precedent and CSOs in other countries can adapt our legal strategy to hold their governments accountable.
What lessons can civil society elsewhere draw from your experience?
This victory proves the power of civil society when we work together. No single organisation could have done it alone, but as a coalition, we pulled it off. Vredesactie led on research and campaign coordination, INTAL mobilised the public and pushed for legal action, 11.11.11 handled communications and political access and the League for Human Rights provided legal expertise. We each brought in something different, and in under a month, we took action and won.
Public support made this possible. In under four weeks, we raised over €15,000 (approx. US$17,500) to cover legal fees. Such a level of solidarity shows people in Belgium care deeply about the Palestinian cause and they are ready to act when the government stays silent.
But perhaps the most important lesson is about persistence. Resistance takes many forms: protests, lawsuits, public statements and even chalk slogans on the pavement. We all feel despair, but we must not let it stop us. We’re not powerless. If we were, they wouldn’t try so hard to silence us or spin the story.
When governments look away while arms flow to a government committing genocide and war crimes, civil society must act. We can’t afford to say this isn’t our fight. We must do something. We didn’t file this case because we knew we’d win, but because not acting would have made us complicit. That’s the choice we made. Now we hope others will do the same.
What challenges lie ahead in this fight?
This court ruling is a major win, but our work is far from over. Unfortunately, the trend at the EU level appears to be shifting towards militarisation and deregulation. We are particularly worried about its Defence Readiness Omnibus package, which would remove licence requirements for intra-EU arms trade, meaning weapons made in Belgium could be sent to Germany without scrutiny, and then easily exported to Israel. This would make national bans meaningless. It’s a dangerous loophole, and we’re mobilising to stop it.
We’ve already filed a complaint against FedEx for transporting military goods to Israel through that route. We’ve also taken action against Challenge Airlines, a Belgian-Israeli carrier, for flying weapons to Israel via the USA. Last year we filed a complaint against ZIM, an Israeli company transporting weapons, and the case is ongoing. And we’re investigating Belgian tech firms whose components may be ending up in Israeli fighter jets. All of this points to a broader pattern of government complicity through inaction.
At the same time, we’re launching a citizens’ initiative in Flanders to push for stricter rules on arms exports. This initiative will force the Flemish Parliament to hold a public debate, where we’ll bring in expert and citizen voices. Our goal is to stop not just transit, but direct exports as well.
CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.
