Mainstream media downplayed violent Amsterdam pogrom

The international media should have known better and been able to call a spade a spade and a pogrom a pogrom.

By GIL HOFFMAN NOVEMBER 16, 2024 10:50

TOASTING MACCABI Tel Aviv fans upon their arrival at Ben-Gurion Airport, after their rescue from marauding pro-Palestinian gangs in Amsterdam, Nov. 8. (photo credit: THOMAS PETER/REUTERS)

When I was nine years old, my parents took my family from our Chicago home to Amsterdam, on the way to visit my grandparents in Israel.

Visiting the Anne Frank House, where a Jewish family hid during the Holocaust, made a strong impression on me at that age. I also remember enjoying a boat ride nearby on the city’s famous canals.

Nearly three decades later, Israeli soccer fans jumped into that canal last Thursday night to escape an angry mob who would not leave them alone until they would say “Free Palestine,” in a frightening pogrom.

The rioters, whose attacks were planned well in advance, could not be reasoned with to understand that it is actually Israel that aims to free Palestine from Hamas.

But the international media should have known better and been able to call a spade a spade and a pogrom a pogrom.

They should have checked the context of anti-Jewish and anti-Israel sentiment growing for years in Amsterdam, long before the current war. Jerusalem Post Editor-in-Chief Zvika Klein reported on the Nakba Day protests in the same location in 2022, highlighted by Israel’s Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism Ministry.

The Post picked up a Dutch media report six weeks ago on Jewish policemen who expressed concern that non-Jewish officers refused to protect Jewish sites, including the Anne Frank House and the much-needed National Holocaust Museum that opened in March.

“There are colleagues who no longer want to protect Jewish targets or events,” officer Michel Theeboom said. “They talk about ‘moral dilemmas,’ and I see a tendency emerging to give in to that. It would truly mark the beginning of the end. I’m concerned about that.”

It is no wonder that so soon afterward Jews were attacked mercilessly and did not receive enough help or protection. Even a statue of Anne Frank was tastelessly targeted with graffiti – in red spray paint.

---

---

THE CENTER for Information and Documentation Israel, which monitors antisemitism in the Netherlands, has found that antisemitic incidents have risen by 250% over the previous year – the highest in four decades. The overwhelming majority of antisemitic incidents reported did not meet the criteria for definitive classification as antisemitism, so the rise was even more significant.

The media watchdog HonestReporting highlighted Telegram messages of riot organizers telling local Muslims to arm themselves ahead of what they despicably called “the Jew hunt.” The message referred to the Israeli fans as “cancer dogs.” 

How media outlets covered the Amsterdam pogrom

Nevertheless, too many international media outlets ignored all the evidence that the attacks on the Israeli soccer fans were premeditated, and portrayed them as typical fights between equally blameworthy soccer fans at best and legitimate outlets of displeasure with Israeli policies at worst.

The New York Times initially described the incident as merely “violence tied to a soccer game.” The antisemitic nature of the attack, which was confirmed by police, Dutch leaders, and common sense, was minimized by attributing it to “Israeli authorities.” 

A video of a mob hurling projectiles at a Maccabi supporter was reported as part of “clashes” between rival teams, sanitizing the brutal one-sided attack into a benign scuffle, while Tel Aviv fans singing “Am Yisrael Chai” was termed an “anti-Arab provocation.” 

Then, four days later, the Times took its “both sides” narrative even further, publishing an “explainer” suggesting that even if Israelis were attacked, they somehow invited it. The piece even suggested that it only “appears” that the attacks were motivated by antisemitism.

Equally worrying is the newspaper’s platforming of Sheher Khan, a Muslim Dutch politician who argued that Israelis should be banned from Amsterdam to avoid “inevitable” demonstrations and confrontations. Rather than challenging Khan’s grotesque proposal with a call to protect Israelis and Jews from antisemitic mobs, the Times practically endorsed it, citing the “political backdrop” as reason enough.

UNFORTUNATELY, THE Times coverage reflected a broader trend. Reuters, the Associated Press, and The Guardian also rushed to frame as mere “clashes” what Amsterdam’s Mayor Femke Halsema likened to “antisemitic hit-and-run squads.”

Reuters referred to the pogroms in a headline as “apparent antisemitic attacks” as if it were a total coincidence that the victims happened to all be Jews. AP put Maccabi Tel Aviv fans first in a headline about them “clashing with reported pro-Palestinian protesters” as if they were co-initiators of violence.

The Guardian had a headline about Israeli fans who were “reportedly attacked in Amsterdam,” even though the footage of the very real incidents is available online for all to see. The same newspaper quoted “one Amsterdam resident,” who just happened to be an anti-Israel activist and did not witness the incidents but said she felt threatened by the Israelis. 

CNN’s coverage was relatively fair and professional. But after describing the videos of the antisemitic incidents, an article on its website added: “CNN has not yet been able to verify those videos.” That line is cringe-worthy after a year of CNN reports of Hamas’s false claims against Israel that carried no such disclaimer.

Days after the attacks, The Daily Telegraph reported in a subheadline that “violence erupted between Maccabi Tel Aviv fans and gangs of men on scooters.”

After HonestReporting fixed the subheadline on social media to mock its bias, The Telegraph corrected it within three hours.

“Warning comes after Maccabi Tel Aviv fans attacked in Amsterdam” was the new subheadline, after The Telegraph did the right thing by changing it. 

The Times of London had the audacity to run a column in its Amsterdam coverage whose headline asked: “Is hosting Israel really worth the risk?” 

The train set on fire by pro-Palestinian activists on Monday night, two days after the Israeli soccer fans left Amsterdam, should have made international journalists realize that their presence in the Netherlands was not the problem. It should go back to being obvious that Jews should be allowed to visit anywhere around the world without fear, and those who terrorize them should be punished severely.

My children have no interest in visiting Amsterdam any time soon. They will instead continue to dodge rocket fire here in Israel, where at least they can trust that security officials are doing all they can to protect them. 

The writer is the executive director of the pro-Israel media watchdog HonestReporting. He served as chief political correspondent and analyst of The Jerusalem Post for 24 years.