Amsterdam

What do you see?

When Sister Michelle woke up on November 8, she saw a New York Times (“NYT”) headline in her news feed: “Israeli Soccer Fans Injured in Attacks That Amsterdam Authorities Call Antisemitic.” Reading the article, she felt confused about what had happened. She saw that Dutch officials had condemned the events as antisemitic and that Israel had sent planes to Amsterdam to bring the fans home. But reading the article she found herself asking, was the attack, in fact, antisemitic? Was it mostly a football brawl? Who was attacking the Israelis and why?

Still unclear about what had happened, she checked The Times of London and read an article with a different tone and emphasis. This article helped Michelle make more sense of the NYT coverage.

As the day went on, both Brother Robert and Sister Michelle noticed a range of reporting. Generally, Jewish writers and sources, as well as early statements by Dutch officials, condemned the events as a “pogrom” and expressed significant concern about the pre-meditation and coordination of the attacks and the failure of the Dutch police to respond effectively. Mainstream reporting emphasized the antisemitic nature of the attacks with more or less focus on the underlying football rivalry. A few condemned violence generally. Others, including Al Jazeera and a number of left-leaning outlets, led with evidence the Israeli fans had been “provocative” and behaved badly, putting the blame on anti-Arab and anti-Muslim animus or decrying “Zionism” as the root problem. Some focused mainly on football rivalry and “hooliganism.” Many identified objections to the war in Gaza and the pre-existing tensions in the city related to regular pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

In the weeks since, we have seen little or nothing in the way of significantly new facts. There have been, however, a number of reports about how the facts should be interpreted or emphasized. For example, the mayor of Amsterdam, after criticism from her left-wing party, expressed regret for initially using the term “pogrom.”

Along with this re-framing, much of the subsequent reporting in Amsterdam and elsewhere has reoriented the narrative to blame purported Maccabi Tel Aviv (the Israeli football team) provocateurs, though again, we don’t see that the underlying facts have changed much.

All of this led us to think about the lenses being used by different groups and reporters, as well as the ways we may try to explain or justify what happened.

Excuses for systematic and highly organized violence

Numerous sources reported Amsterdam taxi drivers sharing information about the locations of Israelis, and then gangs of young men organizing attacks by WhatsApp. Many witnesses reported groups of up to 20 attacking a single Jew. Some were armed with bats or knives. In one incident reported by Jewish News and cited by The Times of London, a visiting London man intervened to help an Israeli who had been attacked by a large group. The man was on the ground being kicked in the head. The mob initially dispersed but then returned, reportedly asking, “Are you Yehudi? Are you Jewish?” and insisting on looking at the Londoner’s passport. After punching the London man in the face, “the leader of the gang said: ‘He’s British, leave him alone,’ another responded ‘Yes, but he helped a Jew.’” Later, one of the attackers came and apologized to him, saying, “Sorry, we thought you were Zionist.”

We read comments in response to the NYT article and noticed different threads focused on how such systematic and highly organized violence is justified, explained, or excused. Some wanted to frame it in terms of soccer rivalry, even though the reporting made it clear that the Amsterdam home team had a large Jewish following. Many have pointed to bad behavior by the Israeli fans: tearing down Palestinian flags, shouting anti-Arab chants, making offensive comments about the deaths of children in Gaza. This is often framed as “provocation,” with the implication that the violent response to the provocation is therefore understandable, or that the Israelis brought it on themselves.

Some reports noted that the riots coincided with commemoration of the 86^th anniversary of Kristallnacht, so-named because of all the smashed glass on the streets. Kristallnacht was a massive assault on Jewish businesses, homes, schools, synagogues, and human beings. The claimed “justification” for Kristallnacht was the assassination of a German diplomat by a 17-year-old Jew. Meanwhile, many observers in Europe and the US, and especially Jewish commentators have consistently called the attack a pogrom. The Times of Israel quoted Amsterdam police chief Peter Holla saying, “Because of an announced pro-Palestinian demonstration, combined with the commemoration [of Kristallnacht…], we anticipated risks to public order…We prepared the maximum.” The police chief seemed to assume a link between pro-Palestinian demonstrations and anti-Jewish violence.

Others point out that the war in Gaza has led to the deaths of many innocents, and they say that Palestinians, as well as Arabs and Muslims more broadly, are justifiably furious. The war itself is framed as the initial provocation for what happened in Amsterdam, and the Israelis then heightened the conflict with taunts (“F**k the Arabs,” and praising Israeli military actions in Gaza), tearing down Palestinian flags, and in one reported case, destroying a taxi.

There are other ways of thinking about that, as well. Destroying a taxi, for example, is a crime, as is vandalizing private property by tearing down flags. We understand that the police investigated promptly and some number of Israelis were arrested. What is the justification for large mobs seeking retaliation for these crimes?

As for the insulting chants, many of us have also been taught that it is unacceptable to respond to words with violence. “From the river to the sea,” and “Worldwide intifada,” and, in the wake of the October 7 attacks by Hamas in Israel, “When people are occupied, resistance is justified,” are all statements made at pro-Palestinian demonstrations under the aegis of free speech. Similarly, Israeli flags and pictures of hostages are routinely torn down or otherwise desecrated, including in Amsterdam. These actions are all highly offensive—and generally perceived as threatening—to Jews generally and to Israelis specifically. The assumption of those making such provocative statements is that they should be able to do so without any violent response. We’ve read several reports that confirm there has not been targeted assault on pro-Palestinians or Muslims in Amsterdam, for example, so it would appear that those demonstrators have indeed been able to make provocative statements against Israel and Jews without being violently attacked.

It’s often said that everyone is in favor of free speech as long as it’s speech they agree with. One’s perspective about free speech in general and specifically whether violence is an acceptable response to offensive speech is another consideration in how to think about this.

Some point to Israelis as supporters of “Zionism” and therefore, in this logic, as supporters of the Israeli government. One obvious question is whether it makes sense to hold individual citizens responsible for the actions of their country, and to do so with violence. In practice, this approach is usually focused on separating Jews from Zionists and denying that the attacks are anti-Jewish; they’re simply anti-Zionist. As illustrated by the story that opened this section about the London man who intervened in the beating of the Israeli, that argument isn’t as straightforward as its supporters claim. (“Are you Yehudi? Are you Jewish?” “Yes, he’s British, but he helped a Jew,” “We’re sorry, we thought you were a Zionist.”) We found it interesting that the Londoner was, in fact, Jewish. A few will use that as an argument in support of the idea that the mob wasn’t attacking Jews, and they will perhaps point to the apology for punching him when they thought he was a Zionist as proof they’re right.

Choices about how to highlight

One place where we can look for media bias is in the headlines of articles and clarity about who the responsible players are in the story. Sometimes the headlines don’t appear to match the content of the story. Often the headline is written by a copy editor, other times by the reporter.

In the Amsterdam story some media outlets considered the facts, took into account their usual biases, and said clearly, “this was antisemitism and the actors were Muslims.” Others hedged about antisemitism and were unable to say who the actors were. Given that many sources were reporting that it was Muslims, though some said “pro-Palestinians,” others said “Arabs,” and still others “Turks and Moroccans,” was the NYT not reporting this information out of some bias? Was that the result of a particular lens the reporters were looking through? Is there the sniff of antisemitism in such reporting? Or is it just good journalism, or excessive caution?

The original NYT report on November 8 had this headline: “Israeli Soccer Fans Injured in Attacks That Amsterdam Authorities Call Antisemitic: The police said dozens had been arrested over violence tied to a match between Dutch and Israeli teams.” Later, the headline was changed to: “Antisemitic Attacks Prompt Emergency Flights for Israeli Soccer Fans: Dutch and Israeli officials said the fans had been attacked in Amsterdam after tensions flared around an Israeli team’s visit.”

The second headline did say “antisemitic attacks,” which was in line with what other news sources were reporting. That said, we experienced the article as ambivalent about the seriousness of the attacks, engaging in a form of “fine people on both sides,” (though in this case, it was “bad people on both sides”), and an unwillingness to identify the actors (“Some people angered by the war in Gaza were upset that the Israeli team and their supporters had come to the city.”) To be fair, the article did mention pro-Palestinian demonstrations as part of the backdrop of events. So, we could have made the leap that this was significant because the violence was coming from the same community. Though given the US experience with such protests, a reader could assume the attacks were being carried out by progressive, white, non-religious Dutch university students.

As you read the article what do you see?

The original Times of London (November 8, 2024) headline was “Israeli football fans attacked by pro-Palestine mob in Amsterdam.” When we went to the same article on November 11, the headline had changed to remove the pro-Palestine reference: “Israeli football fans ‘run for their lives’ in Amsterdam attacks.” Hmmm, what’s that about? The most generous take on it may be that the attackers were coming from groups that had been involved in violence against Jews and critics in the Netherlands and that most of those who had been involved in the pro-Palestinian marches hadn’t been violent. The article quickly quotes people saying the actions were antisemitic and a pogrom. And it continues to unfold with an emphasis on what had been experienced by the Israeli fans and comments by Dutch leaders with their view of things. For example, King Willem-Alexander expressed “deep horror and shock”, saying: “We failed the Jewish community of the Netherlands during World War Two, and last night we failed again.” It’s well into the article before you come to Palestinian rationalizations for the violence, whereas in the NYT such rationalizations come early and regularly throughout the report.

As you read The Times of London piece, what did you see?

As we were in the process of writing this we took note of Bret Stephen’s opinion piece, A World Wide ‘Jew Hunt’ in the NYT (November 12, 2024). He seems to have seen the same things we’ve identified. He notes that it is “remarkable how strenuously some people initially tried to obscure the nature of the Amsterdam pogrom. The media are rarely shy about calling out certain kinds of hate crimes as racist. Yet for days the word ‘antisemitic’ was either put inside quotation marks or attributed to Dutch officials when talking about the violence. The identity of the attackers has been treated as a mystery, or a secret, beyond delicate references to people with ‘a migration background,’ in the words of Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof.”

As we’ve noted, though, there has been quite a bit of emphasis on how important it is not to malign Muslims or use language that could lead to “Islamaphobia.” When the mayor of Amsterdam expressed regret about calling the attacks a pogrom, she said in a statement she was concerned about the word being turned into “propaganda” and that the word “is mainly used to discriminate against Moroccan Amsterdammers, Muslims. I didn’t want to use it that way.” On November 24, a NYT op-ed included the following quotes: “Using ‘pogrom,’ said Hassnae Bouazza, a Dutch-Moroccan journalist and filmmaker, ‘legitimizes everything’ against Muslim migrants and ‘establishes that there is fear, there is hatred, and the division in the country grows.’”

And, “Keren Hirsch, a Jewish councilwoman in Amsterdam, backed up [Amsterdam’s mayor’s] newer statement, posting on social media that the ‘real problem’ was ‘Jew-hatred,’ adding, ‘And no, you don’t fight that with Muslim-hatred.’”

It is always important to avoid demonizing people, and especially extrapolating the behavior of groups to all members of the group or vice versa. It’s also important to be sensitive to the ways stereotypes and inflammatory language can stoke prejudice. This is a fraught issue within the Netherlands and the country has elected some far-right elected officials who make some blatantly anti-Muslim statements and have advocated for some blatantly anti-Muslim policies. At the same time, there are real dangers in being so sensitive that we avoid what is true. We’re aware of a tendency to simultaneously hesitate to name antisemitism, coupled with a great deal concern about the effect of naming antisemitism on Muslims. We were also curious why it is wrong to report about “fear, hatred, and division in a country as it grows” – assuming this is, in fact, happening – and also how “Jew-hatred” is so different from “pogrom.” Both seem pretty bad to us.

Just as it’s not inherently antisemitic to criticize Israeli policies or the statements or actions of individual Jews, it’s also not inherently Islamophobic to criticize Palestinian policies or stances, or the actions of individual Muslims, including noting when bad behavior appears to be motivated by religious views. What are the lenses used by those quoted? What are the policies or stances criticized and why?

Our lenses

The two of us have our lenses, too. Some of the most important ones for the purposes of this article are the lenses of liberal democracy, Christianity as expressed in Anglican tradition and practice, and a view that facts are holy, and freedom requires truth. We also think freedom is good but not the only good. For various reasons, we have also both been sensitive to the fact of antisemitism and the dangers it poses.

We generally see the NYT, in its reporting and institutional editorializing, as hostile to Israel. This hostility is expressed in regard to Israel’s role in the Middle East and its actions in relation to its fights with Iranian proxies, including Hamas, as well as its treatment of Palestinians who are not also Israeli citizens. We have developed a certain take on this. Is our approach a useful lens to see through, or merely a predisposition? Or is it an unfair bias? And most important, is it largely accurate or mostly false? So, for example, a November 12 NYT article on the Gaza situation had this headline:

Attack, Withdraw, Return: Israel’s Bloody Cycle of War in North Gaza

Israel said its forces had returned to northern Gaza to fight a Hamas resurgence. That has brought a new round of suffering for residents.

We wondered why it wasn’t this headline:

Hide Within Civilians, Attack, Lose Again: Hamas’s Bloody Cycle of War in North Gaza

Hamas said its forces had returned to northern Gaza to fight Israel. That has brought a new round of suffering for residents.

Or perhaps this:

Hamas and Israel’s Bloody Cycle of War in North Gaza

The ongoing fighting has brought a new round of suffering for residents.

The NYT’s choice had the effect of confirming our perspective. What do you make of it? And then, please consider, what do you make of what you make of it? What is your lens, your bias, and in this one case, is your lens mostly accurate or mostly false? And how do you know that?

The lens of antisemitism

Among other lenses, you need a pair of glasses that allows you to see the antisemitism that comes from all corners, and that peculiar form coming from the left in America. The very obvious right-wing antisemitism is more familiar to us. It’s what we saw in Charlottesville, Pittsburgh, and Poway, California. Torches, “Jews will not replace us,” and killings. It’s typically explicit, often violent, and has its roots in neo-Nazi and Christian identitarian ideologies. It’s what makes immediate sense to liberals as “antisemitism” and is easily recognized for the evil it is. Yet the left often sees itself as virtuous, on the “right side of history,” and in so doing becomes blind to its own antisemitism. You may find it useful to read an earlier article in which we explored the matter of lenses – “Faith, hope, and love abide: Now we see in a mirror, dimly.”

What we’re offering below are descriptions of how antisemitism generally works. The images are often interdependent. For more detail on each item see our earlier article, “Antisemitism is like crabgrass.” Much of what’s below is lifted from that piece.

Antisemitism is like crabgrass – It just pops up suddenly. As though appearing overnight. The seeds are already in the soil, a space gets created as the soil isn’t being properly nurtured, healthy grass and plants die, and crabgrass takes over. The phrase comes from Oskar Knoblauch, a Holocaust survivor, quoted in a Politico article.

A shape-shifting worldview that slithers – Bari Weiss describes it as “a shape-shifting worldview that slithers away just as you think you have it pinned down and, in so doing, stays several steps ahead of anyone trying to clobber it…Anti-Semitism successfully turns Jews into the symbol of whatever a given civilization defines as its most sinister and threatening qualities.” Antisemitism isn’t like other prejudices. For over two thousand years it slides into action in response to some social anxiety and takes shape to address that anxiety.

A highly infectious thought virus – That’s the image of historian Paul Johnson. It’s an intellectual disease. As our system becomes weak, trust declines and extremist voices have more play. It’s a virus like herpes lurking within and asserting itself at times of weakness.

Antisemitism is a conspiracy myth – “The antisemite begins convinced that Jews have engaged in a conspiracy and seeks to determine the precise nature of that conspiracy. If something happens in society that I oppose for some reason, the Jews must be behind it.” (Deborah Lipstadt.)

The double standard – This is when we apply a different set of norms or standards in similar situations. It’s a common form of antisemitism and we’ve described some additional examples below. One common one is criticizing Israel for having a state religion (Judaism) while being silent about the fact that Hamas and almost all the surrounding Arab nations also have a state religion (Islam). Islam is the official state religion in 23 countries, yet Israel is singled out for criticism as a Jewish state.

No space to be in - don’t stick out – “Antisemitism works by increasingly restricting spaces where Jews can feel welcome and comfortable, until none are left.” (Einat Wilf, a former Labor member of the Knesset.)

Yes, but the Jews provoked it – This acknowledges that some wrong is being committed against the Jews and then moves to arguments about how “the Jews provoked it.” Because Jews are like everyone else in the world, there are Jews who break laws and norms. So, there will always be someone or some event that the antisemite can point to and say, “The Jews provoked it.” Kristallnach was because a Jew murdered a German diplomat. The Holocaust was because “they were Communists and scum.” Persecution in the Soviet Union was because “they are capitalists.” And in 2024 in Amsterdam some Israelis took down a Palestinian flag, chanted nasty anti-Arab phrases. and damaged a taxi.

Create in the public mind a hierarchy of groups - The hierarchy works in such a way that the Jews were far down the list. The rationale for the list would change over time – race, ethnicity, perceived influence in society, perceived wealth, religion.

In our experience, it is almost impossible for those on the left to see or acknowledge their antisemitism. That may be due to the long association of the left with civil rights and their strong objection to “isms” of all kinds. They are the champions of the oppressed! They hold up the marginalized! Yet they are as likely as everyone else to fail to grasp the dynamics of antisemitism and to use the methods of antisemitism we have noted above. And there are also at least two strategies they use that may be unique to allegedly “progressive” politics.

Seeks to delegitimize the state of Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people - The effort usually works at focusing on the faults of Israel in a manner that suggests it is an especially evil nation. This approach hides behind the language of liberal values about the poor and oppressed and marginalized (see above) while working in concert with totalitarian and terrorist regimes and groups. The popularity of the phrase, “I’m not antisemitic, I’m just anti-Zionist,” is a concise summary of both the viewpoint and the blindness. More on that below.

​Hides itself - The approach on the left seems to be, “Simply say, ‘I’m not antisemitic,’ and then assume that ends the discussion.” Like a magic incantation, the words are said and what you see disappears. The inability to see and address its antisemitism makes it difficult to have a discussion with those on the left holding these views. “I’m not antisemitic!” In many cases what that means in practice is, “I have redefined words, so that meanings and behaviors that once were considered antisemitic are now not antisemitic, at least in my own mind.”

We have provided a PDF of the above list as an “Antisemitism Worksheet.” You can use the worksheet to increase your understanding of how antisemitism functions in society. Try to assess situations and media using the statements. Do you see them present and active either directly or in the background?

Antisemitism Worksheet

110KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Oppressor/oppressed lens and/or identity vs. liberal democracy lens

The lenses we use to see and understand antisemitism sit within a larger discussion taking place in society. That might be described in terms of an oppressor/oppressed lens and/or the broader identity vs. liberal democracy lens. There are a number of ways in which the issue shows itself. Those who organize the world into oppressors and oppressed tend to see Israel as a white oppressor nation. Which makes little sense to most Jews and Israelis. An issue within the issue is whether you can separate the state of Israel from the Jewish people. It often plays out in an abstract conversation that begins by assuming the oppressor/oppressed lens. And as Israel is a rather successful western democracy it must be an oppressor, colonialist nation. So, we have a conclusion based on the lens we have decided to see through.

We also have the related matter of whether being anti-Zionist means you are antisemitic. With the identity lens that labels Israel as white and colonialist you have delegitimized the state of Isreal and legitimized an anti-Zionist stance. So, now you can separate the individual Jew from the nation of Israel. However, in the concrete there is the reality that about 80% of American Jews are Zionists, believing that a Jewish homeland is necessary. That would mean that when campus protestors create a space that says “No Zionists allowed” in effect they are acting against most Jews. So maybe in the abstract you’re not engaged in antisemitism while in the concrete you are.

We’re not going to go further into all this. We simply want to acknowledge that the issue exists. For the purposes of this article we’re staying with the factors listed as common in antisemitism as its own lens. We can use that to look at the reporting that has taken place about Amsterdam.

What’s your assessment?

Here’s the hard part. In reading much of the above, you may have come to a place where you have to acknowledge that you have a lens for seeing events that is rather set and that you’re not willing to reconsider. Fair enough. In that case, you’d be wasting your time looking at this last section.

However, you may have found something shifting in your understanding about how lenses work as you reflect on the historic dynamics of antisemitism, your own experience of the disputes we’ve seen in the society and this summer’s Episcopal Church convention, and your initial read on what took place in Amsterdam. If so, you may find this last exercise interesting, even a way to enlarge your mind and heart.

The task: Read each of the articles below. Notice how they differ – tone, headlines vs. content, the way the story unfolds. After reading an article you might then review the “Antisemitism Worksheet.” Does it set off any concerns in you? Do you have a strong reaction to a particular article? Can you say where that is coming from? Is the article challenging a lens you routinely use?

The original NYT report on November 8: Antisemitic Attacks Prompt Emergency Flights for Israeli Soccer Fans: Dutch and Israeli officials said the fans had been attacked in Amsterdam after tensions flared around an Israeli team’s visit

Related NYT report, also from November 8 – What to Know About the Attacks on Israeli Soccer Fans in Amsterdam

The original Times of London report on November 8: Israeli football fans attacked by pro-Palestine mob in Amsterdam

From The Free Press - “Last Night’s Pogrom in Amsterdam”

From Al Jazeera, November 8: “Israeli football fans clash with protesters in Amsterdam: Amsterdam city council member says ‘Maccabi hooligans’ instigated violence and attacked Palestinian supporters

Bret Stephen’s opinion piece, A World Wide ‘Jew Hunt’ in the NYT on November 12.

​NYT, November 14: At France-Israel Game, Soccer Takes a Back Seat to Politics and Security​: After the recent violence around an Israeli team’s game in Amsterdam, French leaders insisted on proceeding under security with a France-Israel match, and on showing up, themselves

And a few follow up pieces:

From Al Jazeera, November 20 - The pogrom in Amsterdam that wasn’t: The events of November 7 in Amsterdam demonstrate that Zionism is crumbling while Palestinian solidarity is stronger than ever

From The Times of Israel, November 17 - Who attacked Israelis in Amsterdam? Some Dutch politicians can’t bring themselves to say

Finally

There are two issues within all this that we would call your attention to. First, what kind of awareness do we have about what we read and hear in the media, and how varied are our sources of information? Second, what is our awareness of the nature of antisemitism?

If you’ve engaged some of what we’ve offered here, you may find yourself more aware of how articles in the media can vary widely. How they tilt the story in one direction of another. Your ability to sort through all that will depend on the lenses you look through, the completeness of your education in history, civics, and social ethics, the wideness of the sources you pay attention to, and the depth of your faith and practice as a Christian.

Many of the writers on antisemitism see it as a kind of fallback position in western society. In times of anxiety, the haters from both the right and the left become more activated. If you have eyes to see it’s pretty apparent. Though maybe a bit harder to see with the left because they tend to deny it, while the right seems to glory in it. What about the majority of us? Do we find ourselves enabling and colluding with antisemitism? Or is all that possibility a false narrative? Or maybe it was true in the past but is not true of this generation – we have moved beyond that?

This abides,

Sister Michelle, OA and Brother Robert, OA

The Feast of Channing Moore Williams, Bishop & Missionary, 1910

About Brother Robert, OA & Sister Michelle, OA

Related

Faith, hope, and love abide: Now we see in a mirror, dimly

Antisemitism is like crabgrass.

Antisemitism is a shape-shifting virus​: There was the illusion that America was different, that it couldn’t happen here