Four weeks ago, Hamas caused death and destruction, mainly among Israeli civilians. And in the following weeks, Israeli bombings and a ground invasion caused endless misery in the already ravaged Gaza Strip. Facts and figures are scarce, also because Gaza is closed off from the outside world. But aid organizations and the United Nations are unequivocal: this is an unprecedented massacre of Palestinian civilians, resulting in thousands of deaths. The goals of Israel’s military response are, perhaps deliberately, vaguely formulated. Eliminating Hamas is an illusion. And so the war can continue for a long time. And this also increases the risks of escalation outside Israel and Palestine. During the first four weeks it was already visible how the conflict in the Middle East is affecting the world, both among citizens and in geopolitical terms. In many countries, citizens have become victims of hatred and (the threat of) violence, purely because of their origin or religion. Anti-Semitism and Muslim hatred thrive in a heated Israel-Palestine debate, so all the ingredients for even more misery are present.
Examples abroad, such as the storming of a plane from Tel Aviv in Dagestan, have caused a stir in recent days. But there are also shameful examples in the Netherlands. Mosques must provide extra security. The Jewish plaice Cheider in Amsterdam had to close temporarily because the safety of children, parents and staff could not be guaranteed. The National Coordinator for Combating Anti-Semitism (NCAB) noted a clear increase in the number of anti-Semitic incidents. The fact that citizens do not feel safe in the Netherlands, and are sometimes even attacked, is unacceptable. Now that it is becoming increasingly clear that the escalation in Gaza and Israel is far from over, the urgency of this problem must be more emphatically on the political agenda.
This does not alter the fact that Israel-Palestine should not be reduced to a cheap election issue, without shades of gray. During election times, politicians tend to want to score with current events. This topic is far too layered for that. Moreover, unqualified statements by politicians can directly affect the safety of citizens. It might have been one blessing in disguise that a debate about the war in the House of Representatives was canceled this week. D66 and the SP had asked for this, but the coalition parties of the outgoing cabinet VVD and CDA were not in favor of it. D66 and SP had a good reason for requesting the debate: the position of the Netherlands in this dossier is internationally unclear, due to their own actions. The Netherlands, like 14 other EU member states, had not supported a UN resolution calling for a possible permanent ceasefire, but had abstained from voting. The Netherlands initially even tended to vote against the resolution, according to a reconstruction of NRC. This was because there was no clear condemnation of the terrorist attack by Hamas on October 7. After much discussion, abstention was chosen, mainly for geopolitical reasons.
A debate about the Dutch position, which deeply divides the outgoing cabinet, would have been welcome. Openness about the considerations behind this decision is necessary. But a debate on Israel-Palestine must be conducted responsibly, with a few principles that must always come first: empathy with citizens and victims, and respect for international law. Unfortunately, those two principles are too often invisible.
Some parties blindly support one party and thus lose sight of humanity. Israel-Palestine must continue to be seen as an extremely complicated dossier, with consequences for countless citizens who never asked for it. What it certainly should not be is an imported one culture war. Standing blindly behind Israel, or chanting along with a slogan like From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free, dehumanize the conflict. Several parties are guilty of attempts at escalation instead of calm. Wisdom is necessary, but not sufficiently offered politically. Combating increased social tensions must be a top priority, regardless of where a party stands in this conflict. A good example was given by Mayor Femke Halsema of Amsterdam, who pointed out that citizens should never be held responsible for the policies of leaders in the Middle East. Her example is worth following. Internationally, the Netherlands must commit itself to safeguarding international law, standing up for the interests of citizens, and always remaining available as a partner: be it to provide assistance or to help mediate.