THREAD: The mayor of Amsterdam, Femke Halsema, today released a 12-page report on the events in Amsterdam during the past week. It provides the most detailed account we have thus far, and corrects some details in my earlier posts on the matter. For example, and contrary to what I reported, the police did in fact arrest a few Israeli hooligans (ten in total), but appear to have quickly released them as well.
The above notwithstanding, Halsema like virtually every other Dutch politician continues to frame the disturbances within the broader framework of the long history of anti-Semitism rather than the specific one of opposition to continued Israeli participation in international sports competition while the state engages in genocide against the Palestinian people, or more directly of Israeli hooligans running amok in the streets of Amsterdam. As if the Maccabi Tel Aviv hooligans were singled out because they are Jewish, rather than on account of their violent and vile conduct. As if Israelis were singled out not because they were presumed to be visiting Maccabi supporters but because of Jew hatred.
The report does provide evidence of anti-Semitic expressions, primarily by a taxi driver, and then goes on to conflate any and all hostility to rampaging Israeli hooligans and indeed to Israel and its genocide with anti-Semitism. (According to the report, Israel's foreign minister went one further, and in a telephone call with Halsema invoked the Holocaust).
As previously noted, the fatal flaw in the anti-Semitism/pogrom framework is that there is no evidence of attacks on Dutch Jews on the night in question, nor is any provided in the report. In fact, as the report recounts, the Amsterdam Jewish community held its commemoration of Kristallnacht in the city's Portuguese Synagogue - a well-known landmark - on the same night as the football match. Yet the purportedly anti-Semitic hordes made no effort to attack or disrupt this event, or any other Jewish target that was not believed to be associated with Maccabi Tel Aviv's contingent of genocidal thugs.
Given the authorities' understanding of what happened and why, the report recounts in great detail the additional measures they have since taken to provide extra protection to the Amsterdam Jewish community and its institutions. While these measures appear to have been taken as a general precaution rather than in response to specific threats, it's hard to quibble with any decision taken for the protection of communities who feel themselves to be at risk and are constantly being told that their neighbours want to slaughter them.
Yet in doing so the report reveals the gross discrepancy in Halsema’s and the authorities' response to different forms of racism and discrimination. Indeed, the systematically downplays the anti-Arab and anti-Palestinian racism that was so very evident throughout the events in question, and for that matter the severity of the conduct engaged in by the Israeli thugs. It's inconceivable this would have been given the same treatment in the report had it been discussing a visiting Arab team directing similar abuse at Amsterdam's Jews.
In contrast to a whole series of meetings with Amsterdam's Jewish community leaders and organizations, and constant communication with the Israeli embassy and Israeli officials, there was only minimal communication with the Arab or Muslim community and none whatsoever with Palestinians. And while the report recounts explicit calls to attack mosques (presumably from the nativist far right rather than the visiting fascist thugs), there is no indication the authorities considered these houses of worship worthy of protection.
Clashes between hooligans affiliated with opposing football teams are hardly a novelty, but what happened in Amsterdam was fundamentally different. Rather than pitting supporters of the home team against those of the visitors, violence erupted between visiting hooligans and residents of the home city who had nothing to do with football but rather were presumed to be of Middle Eastern origin or visibly in solidarity with the Palestinian people.
The explanation for this is to be found not in anti-Semitism, but in a somewhat opaque sentence on page 4 of the report: "Concerns centered particularly on the aggression shown by Maccabi supporters and the reaction of taxi drivers."
Rather than drawing the appropriate conclusions, Dutch politicians have engaged in endless grandstanding, seeking to outbid each other in demonizing the country's Arab and Muslim citizens, and its Moroccan community in particular, while resorting to increasingly ghastly historical comparisons to characterise last week's events.
There’s an ongoing power struggle in the country’s increasingly chaotic politics. Not only between left and right, but particularly between the right and far right, and within the expanding far right. And it is being waged on the backs and at the expense of society’s most vulnerable members. Not just by the right, but by all of them. And their political hooliganism is not expected to end anytime soon.
Representatives of a civilization that within living memory gassed their fellow human beings to death on an industrial scale in purpose-built facilities, and literally burned humans in ovens, now lecture others about norms, values, and anti-Semitism without a scintilla of self-awareness.
The link below contains links to both the Dutch original and English translation of the report in question. END
THREAD: It’s now pretty clear what happened in Amsterdam this week. But first some background.
For over a decade the football governing bodies FIFA, the International Federation of Football Associations, and UEFA, the Union of European Football Associations, have consistently rejected demands to suspend or expel the Israel Football Association (IFA) and individual Israeli football clubs from their ranks.
FIFA and UEFA have been formally requested to do so by the Palestinian Football Association (PFA) on multiple occasions, and have additionally been called upon to adopt measures against the IFA by a variety of activists and fans who launched the Red Card Israeli Racism campaign.
THREAD: Citing a “crisis of trust”, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has finally fired his defense minister, Yoav Gallant. He’d fired him once before, in March 2023, when Gallant warned that Netanyahu’s program to overhaul the Israeli judiciary, and the consequent polarization of Israeli Jewish society, would have negative repercussions for Israel’s security. On that occasion widespread protests forced Netanyahu to reinstate Gallant. The insight that got him fired the first time notwithstanding, no Israeli leader was caught with their pants further down on 7 October of last year than Gallant himself.
On this occasion as well it appears that Gallant’s failures as defense minister were not the reason for his dismissal. Rather, Netanyahu’s primary motivation appears to be Gallant’s role in drafting members of the Orthodox Jewish community known as Haredim, measures which he and the military’s leadership consider necessary to address the Israeli military’s growing manpower shortages. Other differences, among them those relating to Gallant’s leadership of the Israeli military, the future of the Gaza Strip, and relations with Washington also played a role, but a secondary one.
The Haredi community has as a rule enjoyed exemptions from the draft so that its members can instead devote themselves to religious study. As this community has grown over the years, and with the loophole utilized by others unwilling to waste several years of their life in military service, the Haredi exemption has become an issue of increasing debate and resentment. Even more so during the past year as Israel’s failures to achieve its war objectives, and the expansion of conflict across the region, placed a disproportionate burden on not only the conscript army but also the military’s reserve forces.
THREAD: On 2 November 1917, Great Britain issued the Balfour Declaration. The document is of enormous significance because it transformed Zionism from a political aspiration into a credible project.
The First Zionist Congress, convened in the Swiss City of Basel in 1897, recognized that great power sponsorship was vital to the success of Zionism. Thus Article 4 of the Basel Program called for “Preparatory steps for obtaining the governmental approvals necessary for the achievement of the Zionist goal”. For the next two decades, Zionist leaders spent as much effort obtaining imperial sponsorship as they did to promoting what the Basel Program called “The expedient promotion of the settlement of Jewish agriculturists, artisans, and businessmen in Palestine”.
In 1917 the Zionist movement finally succeeded. With the Balfour Declaration it achieved the sponsorship of the world’s most powerful state. Issued as a personal letter from British Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour to the prominent British Zionist Walter Rothschild, it stated in relevant part:
THREAD: On Friday 27 September Israel launched an unprecedentedly intense series of air strikes on the Lebanese capital, Beirut. Multiple 2,000 pound missiles flattened an entire area of the city’s densely populated southern suburbs, including multiple apartment buildings comprising many dozens of homes. The explosions were so powerful they could be felt dozens of kilometers away. Casualty figures are expected to be massive.
Israel claims it targeted the central command headquarters of Hizballah, and that this facility was situated below the buildings it targeted. Multiple Israeli press reports indicate the target of the bombings was Hizballah General Secretary Hassan Nasrallah, and that Israel had received a “golden tip” that the senior Hizballah leadership was meeting the moment it struck. If its claims are accurate and the strike was successful it would, in combination with a series of assassinations over the previous weeks, amount to a decapitation of the Lebanese movement.
The element of theater should also not be discounted. The attack took place only minutes after Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addressed the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. On this occasion, the chamber was largely empty as numerous delegations left in protest. The ecstatic cheers as he held forth on the distinction between Israel’s “Blessing” and Iran’s “Curse” came from his groupies and Israel flunkies in the peanut gallery.
THREAD: The latest fad among Israel flunkies is to denounce the Arabs of the Middle East and North Africa as illegitimate colonizers. In this telling, not only are Russians, Germans, and Lithuanians indigenous to the Middle East, but those who have actually lived there for millenia are not.
The claim is based on the supposition that the Arab Muslims of the Middle East and North Africa collectively hail from the Arabian Peninsula. It is often accompanied by an insistence that Christians, Jews, Druze, and members of other faiths in the region are not Arabs at all, but rather the surviving remnants of distinct indigenous populations that are living under a foreign Arab colonial yoke to this very day.
Given that the journey from Mecca to Jerusalem is considerably shorter than that from Vilnius or Odessa, it’s a little unclear what point is being scored. But more importantly, there’s no point to score.
THREAD: Developments in Lebanon during the past week have once again focused attention on the Axis of Resistance and its role during the current crisis. A few observations:
1. The Axis of Resistance is a coalition rather than a formal alliance. It consists of states, movements, and militias that share the common objective of confronting and reducing US and Israeli influence in the Middle East, and at times of weakening governments allied with the West as well.
2. Iran is the most powerful member of this coalition and therefore a central and highly-influential player. But it does not command the Axis of Resistance. It is more the Germany of the European Union than the Soviet Union of the Warsaw Pact. Its influence is also far from uniform and, as demonstrated by the shifts in Iranian-Syrian relations during the past quarter century, changes over time. Some militias operating in Iraq and Syria have all the hallmarks of Iranian proxies. Yemen’s AnsarAllah clearly does not. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps was closely involved with the establishment of Hizballah, which for good measure fully subscribes to the Islamic Republic’s system of rule. But it is today powerful enough to make its decisions in Beirut rather than Tehran. Hamas for its part has had an ambivalent relationship with the Axis. At the outset of the Syrian civil war Hamas broke with Damascus, and its exile leadership moved not to Beirut or Tehran but Doha, and a rupture with Iran lasting almost half a decade ensued.