The Intifada Was Globalized in Amsterdam

On university campuses throughout the world, there have been chants demanding that the violent intifada – which killed thousands of Israeli children, women and other civilians – be “globalized.” Last week, we witnessed the first significant manifestation of that demand in Amsterdam, where large groups of predominantly Arab and Muslim rioters physically attacked Israelis and Jews who had been cheering for an Israeli soccer team.

Although some of the media tried to blame the attacks on Israelis, the evidence strongly suggests that this pogrom was planned well in advance and would have taken place even if there had been no provocation by Israeli fans.

What some Israeli fans are accused of doing is all too typical of European soccer “hooligans”: tearing down the opposing team’s flags – in this instance Palestinian flags – and shouting racist epithets, but there is no evidence of any violence directed against pro-Palestinian individuals by Israelis or Jews. The violence was ALL perpetrated by anti-Israel and anti-Jewish rioters against Israeli and Jewish victims.

There is no moral or legal equivalence between non-violent mischief — such as tearing down flags and shouting racial insults — and committing life-threatening assaults upon people based on their religion and ethnicity. The anti-Israel rioters were hunting down Jews, compelling victims to beg for their lives by denying they were Jewish.

Without justifying the shouting of racial slurs by some Israelis, it is important to remember Sigmund Freud’s brilliant insight that “civilization began on the day the first human hurled an insult rather than a spear at his opponent.”

Muslim extremists have a long history of hurling spears in response to non-violent insults. Recall the numerous deadly attacks — shootings, stabbings, bombings and lethal fatwas—against those who allegedly insulted the prophet by picturing him or authoring books about him. There was also violence against those who burned Korans or otherwise demeaned Islam. Even cartoons provoked deadly responses.

The law in no Western nation grants the victims of non-violent insults the right to respond by violence. If a Jew were to physically assault the many Muslims who have repeatedly demeaned Judaism or its nation-state during recent protests, they would be appropriately punished, as some have been.

This attempt to justify the violence committed is yet another manifestation of the rancid double standard imposed by the media and others against all things Jewish. It also reflects widespread acceptance of the racist excuse that “Muslims will be Muslims” when it comes to violently responding to insults.

Evidence strongly suggests that the violence in Amsterdam was planned and coordinated well in advance of any non-violent provocations, and would have occurred even if no flags had been taken down and no insults shouted. Also, many non-Arab and non-Muslim Dutch antisemites cheered on the attackers, reflecting the long-standing and deep Jew-hatred that has been part of Dutch culture since before the Holocaust. The Netherlands was among the most pro-Nazi nations in Europe during World War II, and after the war took little action against Dutch people who collaborated with the German occupiers.

Not surprisingly, the Amsterdam police did not do enough to stem last week’s violence, and law enforcement authorities quickly freed most of the rioters, including those who committed assaults.

Leaders of the Dutch government eventually apologized and took measures to prevent recurrences. But we are likely to see more anti-Israeli and anti-Jewish pogroms in other parts of the world as antisemitism moves from the fringes to the mainstream. Unless something proactive is done, it’s coming to a theater – or stadium – near you.

Protestors – both pro- and anti-Israel – have the right to express their views verbally and even symbolically, but they have no right to attack individuals or groups based on religion, ethnicity or national origin. Those who engaged in physical assaults – and many were caught on video – must be prosecuted and, if convicted, imprisoned or deported. A clear line must be drawn between lawful, even if immoral, protests, and criminal violence. There is no continuum. It is a bright-line distinction that many in the media are deliberately trying to blur.

The U.S. has a stake in stopping this violence: the call to “globalize the intifada” is not limited to Europe. Those who advocate globalization are inciting violence against Americans of Jewish heritage. The incitement may be too general to be denied First Amendment protection against criminal punishment, but the single standard demands that universities apply the same standard to calls for intifada than they would to calls for lynching of blacks or assaulting of gays. The real difference is that no university student or faculty member would ever call for the latter, and if they did, they would be disciplined or expelled. Yet today it is entirely acceptable, indeed expected, that radical students will call for the lynching and assaulting of Jews and Israelis. That, after all, is what an intifada entails.

Some may argue that the literal meaning of intifada includes non-violent actions, but many of those who hear the call to globalize the intifada understand it to justify violence of the type seen in Amsterdam – and worse.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus at Harvard Law School, and the author most recently of War Against the Jews: How to End Hamas Barbarism, and Get Trump: The Threat to Civil Liberties, Due Process, and Our Constitutional Rule of Law. He is the Jack Roth Charitable Foundation Fellow at Gatestone Institute, and is also the host of “The Dershow” podcast.

Andrew Stein is an American Democratic politician who served on the New York City Council and was its last president, and as Manhattan Borough President.