Erasing the Amsterdam ‘Jew hunt’
On the evening of November 7, 2024, following a soccer match between Ajax and Maccabi Tel Aviv, Amsterdam experienced a wave of antisemitic violence that Jewish organizations and public officials later described as unprecedented in postwar Western Europe. Israeli fans were chased through the city center, assaulted in public spaces, and forced to flee for safety. Some attackers recorded their assaults.
One Israeli supporter escaped by swimming through a canal at night. “Say ‘Free Palestine’ and we’ll let you go!” came the shout from the embankment. He obeyed. Others, targeted because they were perceived to be Jewish, were beaten and kicked even after they lay motionless on the street.
A visible police presence was conspicuously absent that night, and the security camera footage that could clarify police deployment is on its way to being erased. The public prosecutor confirmed this in a letter sent over a year after the events, following my repeated inquiries. Mayor Halsema flatly refused to do anything to prevent erasure. Last Wednesday, she informed me that she will not answer my resolution tabled in the meeting of the City Council on the matter.
Amsterdam’s mayor, Femke Halsema, initially described the night as “pitch-black” and “evoking memories of pogroms,” later regretting the use of the latter word. Yet despite the severity of what occurred, fundamental questions about preparedness, decision-making, and police response remain unanswered.
Authorities have acknowledged that for at least 24 hours before the match, they had access to messaging groups in which calls circulated for what participants described as “part two of the Jew hunt.” The day before the game, Israeli supporters were already assaulted in multiple hit-and-run incidents. And yet after the match, visiting fans were not escorted as they walked through the city center, despite being easily identifiable by the yellow-and-blue colors of their club, and when talking Hebrew.
Two official reports published in May largely cleared the police and mayor, though an independent academic review later criticized the reports as lacking in scientific rigor. Beginning in August, I submitted written inquiries to the mayor, the chief of police, and the chief public prosecutor. Only after a bailiff was dispatched to the prosecutor’s office in December did I receive a formal response. My central question was and is straightforward: I demand the camera footage documenting police activity, or the lack of it, in the city center that night in order to see whether there was a sufficient police presence.
However, the chief prosecutor has substantial leeway in determining which information will eventually be deleted. He seems bent on erasure. Mayor Halsema has declined to intervene, even though she has the authority to preserve the recordings in the interest of public order. If the footage is lost, lost too will be the possibility of independent assessment by the elected city council. It may then never be possible to determine whether police deployment in central Amsterdam was sufficient to protect foreign nationals visiting the Dutch capital, in this case: Israeli supporters.
A documented absence of police
Official statements have repeatedly asserted that police presence was robust. Yet contemporaneous reporting suggests otherwise. Between 11 p.m. and midnight, officers were scarcely visible at key locations, including Station Square, Damrak, and the Burgwallen. A video journalist documented the absence of police on the ground. And despite claims that 1,200 officers were deployed citywide, not a single arrest was made during the post-match disturbances.
The consequences of Amsterdam’s response did not end at its borders. In November, police in Birmingham consulted their Amsterdam counterparts ahead of a Europa League match between Aston Villa and Maccabi Tel Aviv. Following advice that Dutch police later disputed, English officials barred visiting supporters from attending the game. Initially justified on public safety grounds, the decision quickly became a national controversy, with critics arguing that barring fans because they were Israeli or Jewish crossed the line into discrimination. Members of Parliament questioned the quality of the intelligence used to justify the ban.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer intervened publicly: “This is the wrong decision. We will not tolerate antisemitism on our streets. The role of the police is to ensure that all football fans can enjoy the game without fear of violence or intimidation.” West Midlands Police Chief Constable Craig Guildford resigned last week after Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood and Downing Street declared they no longer had confidence in him over his false representation of what Amsterdam police had told.
Public trust in law enforcement does not depend on flawless performance. It depends on transparency, especially when things go wrong. Preserving evidence is not an act of accusation; it is a prerequisite for accountability. Erasing footage that could clarify what happened in Amsterdam does not protect public order, it undermines confidence that authorities will confront uncomfortable facts. When evidence disappears, accountability tends to follow. That is as true in the Netherlands as it is anywhere else.
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-erasure-of-amsterdams-jew-hunt/
A man being kicked by a group of thugs while lying on the ground
A man being dragged by his coat, with the person taking the video swearing at him and shouting statements in support of Gaza
No comments:
Post a Comment