The Blogs: Targeting Allies, Creating Bystanders: Dutch Reflections on Yom HaShoah

An Attack on Allies

Recently, a deeply troubling event occurred during a lecture organized by Christians for Israel (Christenen voor Israël) in the Dutch city of Zaltbommel. On the evening of April 17, attendees approaching the venue were confronted by an aggressive group of anti-Israel demonstrators. Protesters launched verbal assaults, labeling attendees as murderers and child killers. Those who had come for a peaceful evening found themselves subjected to intense hostility and intimidation.

Many turned back, fearful of confronting such aggression. Instead of the expected 100 visitors, only about 50 remained. Demonstrators moved disturbingly close, chanting aggressively and waving banners labeling attendees as “Christians for genocide.” Despite explicit Dutch laws forbidding disruptions of religious gatherings, police officers present chose not to intervene.

As the event concluded, attendees were escorted outside in small groups, warned that they might be verbally abused or spat upon. The Reverend himself became a direct target; his vehicle was vandalized, tires punctured by deliberate sabotage—all under the passive watch of police officers. As the Reverend attempted to leave, demonstrators hurled bloodstained dolls and other gruesome objects towards him and his vehicle—a disturbing act intended to further intimidate and dehumanize.

Historical Echoes—Allies as Targets in the Amersfoort Police Camp

During the Nazi occupation of the Netherlands, those who showed solidarity with Jews—derogatorily labeled “Jew-benefactors”—were systematically isolated, stigmatized, and humiliated. In the notorious Amersfoort Police Camp, prisoners who supported Jews were forced to wear a white Star of David—an explicit humiliation intended to publicly discourage and stigmatize their solidarity. These “Jew-benefactors” were also placed in the infamous Jewish Squad, subjected to the harshest and most degrading forced labor, further intensifying their isolation and demonization.

Virtually every aspect of camp life was deliberately weaponized against Jewish prisoners. Food distribution, living conditions, and work assignments were systematically manipulated to intensify Jewish suffering and isolation. Jewish prisoners consistently received harsher punishments and more degrading tasks. Non-Jewish prisoners were explicitly told their hardships were directly caused by the presence or alleged misbehavior of the Jews, fostering resentment and hostility. Guards and camp authorities strategically created an environment of suspicion and blame, ensuring Jewish inmates remained isolated, targeted, and vulnerable.

Even prisoners who expressed mere compassion or shock at the treatment of Jewish inmates were sternly warned to conceal their emotions and avoid acknowledging what they witnessed, further entrenching an atmosphere of forced complicity and moral collapse.

Reverend Hendrik Lieve, imprisoned in the Amersfoort Police Camp for helping Jews, candidly described how Nazi propaganda nearly succeeded in turning him into an antisemite. Forced by the SS to reprimand a Jewish prisoner, Lieve admitted experiencing troubling emotions, stating: “I felt that antisemitism was like a devil creeping inside me. I struggled to resist this resentment, deeply disturbed at how easily such hatred could infiltrate even a believer’s heart.” This exemplifies the Nazis’ deliberate strategy of moral inversion and social isolation, encapsulated perfectly by the camp’s sinister adage: “Within three months, everyone here becomes an antisemite.”

Dutch newspapers under Nazi control explicitly warned citizens that sheltering Jews would inevitably result in betrayal by those very Jews, thus further cultivating an atmosphere of suspicion and discouraging solidarity.

Media Complicity and Moral Inversion

The recent attack on Christians for Israel in Zaltbommel appears closely connected to allegations disseminated by prominent Dutch media outlets. These accusations, enthusiastically promoted by the investigative program BOOS (produced by the Dutch public broadcaster BNNVARA), Investico, De Groene Amsterdammer, and notably, the Christian daily Nederlands Dagblad, vividly illustrate media complicity in the contemporary demonization of Israel and its allies. Presented as groundbreaking revelations about alleged wrongdoing in the “West Bank,” these investigative findings relied heavily on vague and speculative terms such as “possibly” and “could have,” revealing a fundamental journalistic weakness.

Critically, the broadcast drew eager interest from Al Jazeera, widely regarded as a mouthpiece for Hamas. That a platform so openly partisan showed enthusiasm in airing these allegations immediately raises significant concerns about the investigation’s objectivity and intent.

Remarkably, subsequent detailed examinations and official clarifications from the Israeli government conclusively disproved these allegations. Yet the reputational harm inflicted upon Christians for Israel had already occurred, exemplifying how powerful accusations alone can delegitimize and isolate targeted groups, even when those accusations lack any factual foundation.

These manipulative narratives underscore precisely the subtle linguistic distortions Victor Klemperer warned about in Lingua Tertii Imperii. Language, selectively and strategically wielded, reshapes perceptions and weakens moral judgment. Such linguistic manipulation not only demonizes targets; it conditions broader society into passive complicity.

Manipulation Through Visual Language

Recently, another disturbing example appeared prominently displayed on a residential balcony in Amersfoort: a red-white-black flag featuring a large black cross. This flag is specifically identified as the Reichskriegsflagge, the historical war flag of the German Empire (1871–1918), characterized by the distinctive black Teutonic cross. While originally a military symbol associated with German nationalism and militarism, today this flag has been explicitly appropriated by neo-Nazi and extreme-right groups across Europe. Authorities and human rights organizations, such as the Anti-Defamation League, explicitly recognize this flag as an extremist symbol. In Germany, this flag is officially regarded as a disruptive emblem associated with neo-Nazism, white supremacy, and xenophobia. Its display serves explicitly to intimidate, provoke fear, and reinforce the isolation of targeted minorities. In the Netherlands, however, authorities claim they cannot do anything about it.

Because the swastika is banned in many European countries, extremists deliberately select this historical symbol as a “legal” alternative, yet clearly employ it to signal their Nazi sympathies, racist ideology, and xenophobia. Such visual manipulations serve another purpose: they provide comfortable cover for bystanders to remain passive and complacent. Those who prefer not to confront uncomfortable truths dismiss these symbols by claiming, “It’s just a historical flag,” or downplay hostility towards Jews by asserting, “It’s merely criticism of Israel,” or “the protesters say zionists, not Jews”. Ordinary citizens thus remain comfortably nested in moral neutrality, increasingly irritated at Jews and dismissive of their allies, labeling them overly sensitive or paranoid. This isolates and ridicules those who stand alongside Jews, reinforcing societal indifference and normalizing hostility.

Towards an Updated Definition of Antisemitism

The widespread acceptance or passive tolerance of such manipulations highlights a crucial flaw in contemporary understandings of antisemitism. Authorities, including those in the Netherlands, effectively allow extremist symbolism and rhetoric to flourish unchecked. Clearly, current definitions of antisemitism are insufficient to confront these subtler yet equally harmful manifestations.

Therefore, I propose an expanded definition of antisemitism: Antisemitism includes any act, expression, or strategy explicitly or implicitly intended to harm, isolate, demonize, delegitimize, or destroy Jews, the Jewish state of Israel, or those who stand in solidarity with them. It manifests not only through overt violence or explicit hatred but also through subtler forms: rhetorical manipulation, systematic moral inversions, and deliberate control over historical, cultural, and moral narratives. Antisemitism deliberately seeks to dominate and distort the narrative about Jews, Israel, and their historical experiences, exercising power over definition, memory, and identity.

Final Reflections: The Moral Imperative

Historian Raul Hilberg demonstrated how societal passivity, enabled by widespread demonization and isolation tactics, facilitates atrocities. He highlighted the critical role played by ordinary citizens, administrators, and passive bystanders in enabling the Holocaust, arguing that antisemitism and persecution were indicators of broader moral and ethical failures within society. The concept of bystanders resonates strongly in the Netherlands, appealing deeply to the Dutch societal impulse toward conformity, a tendency closely aligned with the accommodating posture historically exhibited by the Dutch elite.

On Yom HaShoah, Holocaust Remembrance Day, we are explicitly reminded of the consequences of passivity, indifference, and complicity. We must apply these historical lessons urgently and rigorously today. As we confront similar linguistic and visual manipulations and moral inversions, we must recognize that antisemitism is not merely about Jews—it challenges the very core of our humanity. Our response to this challenge today will define our moral legacy for generations to come.

Recognizing and confronting these tactics is not merely a Jewish concern; it represents a moral imperative for all who genuinely uphold human dignity and historical truth. We must remain vigilant, actively educate ourselves and others, and categorically refuse to become passive bystanders once again. We must refuse to accept the isolation, demonization, or transformation of Jews into ‘the Other’—an act that history repeatedly shows to be the first step toward dehumanization.

“The flag displayed in Amersfoort is identified as the Reichskriegsflagge, historically the war flag of the German Empire. Today, it is explicitly used by neo-Nazi and extreme-right groups across Europe as a legally permissible surrogate for banned Nazi symbolism, explicitly chosen to intimidate and provoke.”