According to a recent survey, 40 percent of Dutch school teachers report witnessing at least one anti-Semitic incident in the past year. Hans Wallage comments on the two factors most likely to bring hostility to Jews to the surface, the first being public discourse surrounding the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

The Dutch media landscape plays a critical role in [the problem]: there is little room for a nuanced analysis or historical background in news coverage and opinion pieces. More and more often, there is also a glaring lack of knowledge about the conflict, resulting in very one-sided, incomplete, and sometimes even incorrect reporting. In recent times, the conflict has been increasingly depicted from a perpetrator-victim perspective, with barely any attention for the fact that Israel is fighting a war against terrorists, who aim to kill civilians.

The report also demonstrates that soccer rivalries in and outside stadiums are a huge trigger for anti-Semitic agitation. Since the 1970s and 1980s, supporters of the Amsterdam soccer club Ajax have nicknamed themselves as “Jews.” This Jewish identity is based on the historic (and largely inaccurate) perception of their club being rooted in the Jewish community.

At first glance, the nickname seems harmless, as Ajax supporters claim to be proud of the so-called “Jewish” identity of the club and its fan base. However, supporters of rival clubs use this identity as a stick to attack the team. As a result, anti-Semitic lyrics that have nothing to do with soccer can be heard during every professional match. “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas,” “Jews burn the best,” “It’s cold and stormy, throw some Jews on the fire,” and “whoever does not jump is a Jew” are some of the slogans, part of a large repertoire of anti-Semitic slurs.

Although this problem has existed for decades, nothing has been done about it so far. Politicians, soccer organizations, and supporters’ groups shift responsibility and point to each other. In addition, this hatred is often dismissed as a [purely sports-related] issue and therefore not considered anti-Semitic. The opinion of the Jewish community is not taken into account.

Israel’s goals of freeing the hostages and defeating Hamas (the latter necessary to prevent further hostage taking) are to some extent contradictory, since Yahya Sinwar, the ruler of the Gaza Strip, will only turn over hostages in exchange for concessions. But Jacob Nagel remains convinced that Jerusalem should continue to pursue both goals:

Only consistent military pressure on Hamas can lead to the hostages’ release, either through negotiation or military operation. There’s little chance of reaching a deal with Hamas using current approaches, including the latest Egyptian proposal. Israeli concessions would only encourage further pressure from Hamas.

There is no incentive for Hamas to agree to a deal, especially since it believes it can achieve its full objectives without one. Unfortunately, many contribute to this belief, mainly from outside of Israel, but also from within.

Recent months saw Israel mistakenly refraining from entering Rafah for several reasons. Initially, the main [reason was to try] to negotiate a deal with Hamas. However, as it became clear that Hamas was uninterested, and its only goal was to return to its situation before October 7—where Hamas and its leadership control Gaza, Israeli forces are out, and there are no changes in the borders—the deal didn’t mature.