Europe Finally Breaks Rank: NATO Member Declares Israel a National Security Threat

In recent days, the Netherlands made a significant move by placing Israel on the list of countries considered threats to its national security. This decision was announced in the report “Threat Assessment of State Actors” published by the Dutch National Coordinator for Security and Counterterrorism (NCTV). Citing concerns about Israel’s alleged disinformation campaigns and pressure on international legal institutions, the Dutch government took a step that carries major implications for European foreign policy, diplomatic relations, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Amid the worsening humanitarian crisis in Gaza—where, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), over 54,000 Palestinians have been killed since October 2023—this move signals a shift in global sentiment and could reshape both regional and international dynamics.

The Netherlands’ decision may pave the way for greater international and especially European attention to the Palestinian issue. While the NCTV report specifically mentions Israel’s efforts to manipulate Dutch public opinion through disinformation—such as the publication of Dutch citizens’ personal data during tensions surrounding supporters of the Maccabi Tel Aviv team in Amsterdam, which led to clashes and unrest—the broader significance lies in growing global sensitivity to Israeli actions.

Labeling Israel as a national security threat from Netherlands could mark a fundamental turning point in Europe’s approach to Israeli intelligence operations, security behavior, and political influence. Previously, even countries critical of Israel’s hardline stance toward Palestine and international institutions rarely went so far as to officially designate Tel Aviv as a security threat. But the Dutch move now serves as a potential model for nations such as Ireland, Norway, Spain, and even France, which might use this opportunity to realign their security policies based on current realities rather than outdated alliances.

Moreover, the Netherlands’ concern over Israeli pressure on the International Criminal Court (ICC)—headquartered in The Hague—signals a strong commitment to supporting international legal institutions. The NCTV report refers to threats from both Israel and the United States against the ICC, which is currently investigating allegations of war crimes in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This position may enhance the ICC’s credibility and encourage other nations to support its efforts. In essence, the Dutch move sends a clear and powerful message that Europe is unwilling to compromise its values of international law and justice at any cost.

This step will undoubtedly disrupt regional and global calculations. Israel may respond with more aggressive and isolated stances, while the rift between Tel Aviv and some of its Western allies—such as the Netherlands and possibly France—could deepen. On the other side, Palestinian solidarity movements and the so-called Axis of Resistance may interpret the Dutch decision as a sign of the crumbling Western consensus that has long offered unconditional support to Israel. It could also set the stage for new UN resolutions or a reassessment of arms and security agreements with Israel.

When a major European NATO member officially designates Israel as a security threat, the message goes beyond governments—it reaches non-state actors and resistance groups as well. Groups that have long tried to alert the world to Israeli crimes now find themselves backed by a state action. This could enhance their international legitimacy, boost public support, and increase media influence. Likewise, civil society movements in Europe may use the NCTV report to intensify their boycott or human rights campaigns against Israel.
Had European countries taken such firm and independent stances years ago—before the humanitarian crisis in Gaza reached this scale—the world might not be witnessing such levels of killing, displacement, and human rights violations today. Long-standing silence and political dependencies allowed the crisis to escalate. The Netherlands’ move can be seen as a long-overdue admission of Western failure to confront Israel’s conduct. If justice, not politics, had guided decision-making, many tragedies might have been avoided.

Now, with this shift in Dutch policy, there is an opportunity to review past approaches and end the double standards in Western foreign policy. Because as long as human rights and global justice remain secondary priorities, humanitarian disasters will continue—and inevitably, their consequences will come back to haunt Western governments.

*Translated by Ashraf Hemmati from the original Persian article written by Amin Mahdavi