The New York Times buried the fact that racist Israeli soccer fans instigated attacks in Amsterdam, and instead pushed a false narrative that the violence was driven by antisemitism.
November 10, 2024
MONDOWEISS
MONDOWEISS
New York Times headquarters. (Photo: Wikipedia)
The New York Times report on the recent soccer clashes in Amsterdam was so biased that you wouldn’t be entirely surprised if you found out that Israel’s propaganda/disinformation ministry had kidnapped the paper’s reporters and put guns to their heads.
At this site, Sana Saaed has already done an impressive post surveying the widespread global media bias about the events. But, unfortunately, the New York Times is the most important source of coverage of Israel/Palestine for Americans. The Times sets the tone for the cable TV networks, and other U.S. papers have cut back or ended their foreign coverage. So a closer scrutiny of its ongoing slant is indispensable.
The Times report, which started on page 1, used the word “antisemitic” six times, beginning in the headline. The first six paragraphs uniformly described the “Israeli soccer fans” as the victims, recounting their injuries, and dwelling on the Israeli government’s chartering of “at least three flights to bring Israeli citizens home,” insinuating that innocent people had to completely flee the country for their lives.
You had to jump to paragraph 7, buried on an inside page, to learn that the Israeli fans had, in fact, been violent and provocative the night before the game: they “vandalized a taxi and burned a Palestinian flag.” On game day itself, Israeli fans shouted “an anti-Arab chant,” but the Times never bothered to tell us what they were shouting. (Reports elsewhere said that one of the chants was: “Why is school out in Gaza? There are no children left there.”)
After these brief hints that at least some of the Israelis had not behaved like peaceful sports fans, the Times got back to hammering away at the antisemitism theme. The next to last paragraph is a cunning example of the slant.
To further illustrate the alleged rise in antisemitism in Europe, the paper said:
“Earlier this year, when the Netherlands opened a National Holocaust Museum — almost 80 years after three-quarters of the Dutch Jewish population was killed in the Holocaust — an angry crowd of pro-Palestinian demonstrators gathered outside and yelled, ‘There is a holocaust in Gaza.’”
1.) The murder of Dutch Jews, although of course tragic, has nothing to do with Israel’s murder of Gazans today. And if you are going to bring up percentages, what proportion of the Gazan people are also already dead? 2.) Outside a Holocaust museum is an entirely appropriate place to protest another holocaust that is ongoing. 3.) The Times dismisses the demonstrators as “angry” and “yelling,” loaded words that the reporters left out of their vocabulary in their earlier brief mentions of the chants from the visiting Israelis.
The Times could have reported this story more fairly. By contrast, let’s look at how it was covered in the Jewish Daily Forward. A reporter there named Arno Rosenfeld apparently knows how to use the telephone and/or the internet, because he was able to quickly get through to Amsterdam’s Jewish community, an obvious move that the (three) Times reporters failed to do.
Rosenfeld did report that many Amsterdam Jews were in fact fearful after the violence. But he also informed Forward readers that there was another side to the story:
But some Dutch Jews noted that roving bands of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans had spent Tuesday and Wednesday nights marauding through the city center chanting racist anti-Arab slogans, climbing a facade to rip a Palestinian flag off the second story of an apartment building and assaulting a Moroccan taxi driver.
Jelle Zijlstra, who is Jewish and works as a community organizer in Amsterdam, made a post that went viral on Instagram stating that ‘multiple truths can exist at the same time.’ It highlighted both the assaults on Israelis and footage of the fans shouting ‘F— Palestine’ the night before.
There was definitely antisemitism involved in some of the events that took place, Zjilstra said in an interview. ‘Were Jews attacked in the streets? Yes, but those Jews were also violent hooligans.’”
Arno Rosenfeld showed that reporting on the Amsterdam events with balance and fairness was not impossible. Maybe the New York Times should offer him a job?
The New York Times report on the recent soccer clashes in Amsterdam was so biased that you wouldn’t be entirely surprised if you found out that Israel’s propaganda/disinformation ministry had kidnapped the paper’s reporters and put guns to their heads.
At this site, Sana Saaed has already done an impressive post surveying the widespread global media bias about the events. But, unfortunately, the New York Times is the most important source of coverage of Israel/Palestine for Americans. The Times sets the tone for the cable TV networks, and other U.S. papers have cut back or ended their foreign coverage. So a closer scrutiny of its ongoing slant is indispensable.
The Times report, which started on page 1, used the word “antisemitic” six times, beginning in the headline. The first six paragraphs uniformly described the “Israeli soccer fans” as the victims, recounting their injuries, and dwelling on the Israeli government’s chartering of “at least three flights to bring Israeli citizens home,” insinuating that innocent people had to completely flee the country for their lives.
You had to jump to paragraph 7, buried on an inside page, to learn that the Israeli fans had, in fact, been violent and provocative the night before the game: they “vandalized a taxi and burned a Palestinian flag.” On game day itself, Israeli fans shouted “an anti-Arab chant,” but the Times never bothered to tell us what they were shouting. (Reports elsewhere said that one of the chants was: “Why is school out in Gaza? There are no children left there.”)
After these brief hints that at least some of the Israelis had not behaved like peaceful sports fans, the Times got back to hammering away at the antisemitism theme. The next to last paragraph is a cunning example of the slant.
To further illustrate the alleged rise in antisemitism in Europe, the paper said:
“Earlier this year, when the Netherlands opened a National Holocaust Museum — almost 80 years after three-quarters of the Dutch Jewish population was killed in the Holocaust — an angry crowd of pro-Palestinian demonstrators gathered outside and yelled, ‘There is a holocaust in Gaza.’”
1.) The murder of Dutch Jews, although of course tragic, has nothing to do with Israel’s murder of Gazans today. And if you are going to bring up percentages, what proportion of the Gazan people are also already dead? 2.) Outside a Holocaust museum is an entirely appropriate place to protest another holocaust that is ongoing. 3.) The Times dismisses the demonstrators as “angry” and “yelling,” loaded words that the reporters left out of their vocabulary in their earlier brief mentions of the chants from the visiting Israelis.
The Times could have reported this story more fairly. By contrast, let’s look at how it was covered in the Jewish Daily Forward. A reporter there named Arno Rosenfeld apparently knows how to use the telephone and/or the internet, because he was able to quickly get through to Amsterdam’s Jewish community, an obvious move that the (three) Times reporters failed to do.
Rosenfeld did report that many Amsterdam Jews were in fact fearful after the violence. But he also informed Forward readers that there was another side to the story:
But some Dutch Jews noted that roving bands of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans had spent Tuesday and Wednesday nights marauding through the city center chanting racist anti-Arab slogans, climbing a facade to rip a Palestinian flag off the second story of an apartment building and assaulting a Moroccan taxi driver.
Jelle Zijlstra, who is Jewish and works as a community organizer in Amsterdam, made a post that went viral on Instagram stating that ‘multiple truths can exist at the same time.’ It highlighted both the assaults on Israelis and footage of the fans shouting ‘F— Palestine’ the night before.
There was definitely antisemitism involved in some of the events that took place, Zjilstra said in an interview. ‘Were Jews attacked in the streets? Yes, but those Jews were also violent hooligans.’”
Arno Rosenfeld showed that reporting on the Amsterdam events with balance and fairness was not impossible. Maybe the New York Times should offer him a job?
No, there were no ‘antisemitic pogroms’ in Amsterdam. Here’s what really happened.
Media claims of ‘antisemitic pogroms’ against Israeli fans in Amsterdam are the latest in a pattern of false narratives fueling anti-Muslim violence and justifying the genocide in Gaza.
By Sana Saeed
Media claims of ‘antisemitic pogroms’ against Israeli fans in Amsterdam are the latest in a pattern of false narratives fueling anti-Muslim violence and justifying the genocide in Gaza.
By Sana Saeed
November 9, 2024
MONDOWEISS
MONDOWEISS
A crowd of Israelis tear down a Palestinian flag hanging on a building in the city of Amsterdam. Hundreds of Israelis and fans of the notoriously racist Maccabi Tel Aviv soccer team had traveled to the city for a match in the city. Following a string of attacks and vandalism carried out by Israelis, the Maccabi fans were targeted in what the media dubbed an ‘antisemitic pogrom’. (Screenshot, X)
“Olé, olé!
Olé, olé, olé!
Let the IDF win and fuck the Arabs!
Olé, olé!
Olé, olé, olé!
Why is school out in Gaza? There are no children left there!”
On the night of November 7th, there was an anti-Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam as young Dutch Moroccans on scooters descended onto the streets to assault Israeli Jewish football fans.
At least, that’s the story being told in Western newsrooms and by American and European leaders as the Israeli extermination of Gaza – especially the north – continues unencumbered.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it a “horrific antisemitic incident.”
President Joe Biden released a statement on X saying “the Antisemitic attacks on Israeli soccer fans in Amsterdam are despicable and echo dark moments in history when Jews were persecuted.” He ended by reiterating “We must relentlessly fight Antisemitism, wherever it emerges.”
Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof promised that “the perpetrators will be tracked down and prosecuted.”
EU commissioner Ursula Von Der Leyen gave the reminder that “antisemitism has absolutely no place in Europe.”
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated “the news out of Amsterdam last night is horrifying. This is a dark moment for our world — and one we have seen before.”
The Anti-Defamation League called it a “modern day pogrom”, its CEO Jonathan Greenblatt drawing comparisons to Kristallnacht, saying that “Jews on the streets of Amsterdam were hunted, chased, attacked and forced to hide from an antisemitic mob whose goal was to harm as many Jews as possible.”
Headlines across U.S. news coverage, especially, signaled similar alarm: “Violent Attacks in Amsterdam Tied to Antisemitism”, “‘Scooter Youths,’ Not Soccer Fans, Hunt Jews in Amsterdam”, “Israeli soccer fans suffer ‘anti-Semitic attacks’ in violent Amsterdam incident: Officials”, “Amsterdam bans protests after ‘antisemitic squads’ attack Israeli soccer fans”, “Israeli Soccer Fans Targeted in ‘Antisemitic’ Attacks In Amsterdam”.
But that’s not what happened.
On November 5th, hundreds of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans – reportedly accompanied by Mossad agents – had flown into the city for a game against Ajax FC. It was reported, in the preceding days, that pro-Palestinian groups were planning a large protest outside the stadium against the presence of the Israeli football team. In the two days before the game, there were many reported incidents of violence and intimidation from the Israeli fans – including anti-Arab chants, attacking taxi drivers, ripping down Palestinian flags and attacking homes with any Palestinian imagery.
Emerging video evidence and testimonies from Amsterdam residents (here, here and here for instance) indicate that the initial violence came from Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, who also disrupted a moment of silence for the Valencia flood victims.
But despite that footage and Amsterdammer testimonies, coverage – across international media, especially in the United States – has failed to contextualize the counter-attacks against the anti-Arab Israeli mob.
Where there have been mentions of the actions of the Maccabi fans, the critical context of anti-Arab violence and chants is simply an additional detail versus the foundation of the counter-violence. The context of the violence and racism against Arabs is also downplayed, with less severe language being used to describe it.
Note this excerpt from a Reuters report on the Amsterdam incident:
Videos on social media showed riot police in action, with some attackers shouting anti-Israeli slurs. Footage also showed Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters chanting anti-Arab slogans before Thursday evening’s match.
Wishing death to Arabs at the hands of the IDF and mocking dead Palestinian children, we are told, is a slogan. Forcing Israelis to say “Free Palestine!” is a slur. Through the use of these two words, the weight of violence and of blame is immediately shifted to those victimized.
Then there’s this Channel 4 news report, which shows a bit of a masterful narrative manipulation. It begins with images of people draped in Palestinian flags, marching in the streets of Amsterdam, with the voiceover talking about the ‘shocking’ violence, and how “men on scooters hunted down Israelis to beat them”. We immediately see footage of random Israelis being beaten in the streets and then a jump to the Dutch PM condemning these actions. When presented this way, it is shocking – your initial introduction to this story is that Israeli Jewish football fans were ‘hunted’ and assaulted in the streets by pro-Palestinian hooligans.
A little over a minute into the three-minute report, we move onto what is the critical context: 36 hours of violence and racist slurs and chants by the Maccabi fans. The report spends about 40 seconds going over it, only to return to framing the incident as antisemitic. It concludes with a brief acknowledgement that Maccabi fans have a history of anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian racism but its final note is about the historical memory of Jews with regards to being ‘hunted and chased’ in the streets.
Nevermind the present experience of Arabs, of Muslims being exterminated in their homes, hospitals, schools and tents by a Jewish military.
It’s also worth mentioning here that during the course of writing this piece, Sky News posted and deleted a video report on the racist Israeli mob’s instigation and violence — only to repost the report, with its content and copy edited to center the “antisemitism” framing. In other words, a real-time manufacturing of a story to fit a specific narrative, despite all the evidence available. Few things have captured the intentional complicity of the news media, in the genocide of Palestinians, as transparently and poignantly as this.
The coverage of events in Amsterdam reveals a troubling, but transparent and tired pattern: it serves as a rhetorical tool to justify violence against Arabs and Muslims, whether in Gaza or within the streets of Europe.
The coverage of events in Amsterdam reveals a troubling, but transparent and tired pattern: it serves as a rhetorical tool to justify violence against Arabs and Muslims, whether in Gaza or within the streets of Europe. Each narrative, whether centered around October 7th or November 7th, invariably positions Jewish suffering and historical trauma at its core, thus reinforcing the notion of a Jewish right to violence. Any contextualization that portrays Israelis or Jewish Zionist as aggressors threatens to disrupt this carefully curated monopoly on suffering.
In the case of Amsterdam, the media framing and sensational headlines reinforce an image of the Israeli mob as victims, besieged by an enraged Arab mob that “hunts Jews” in the streets. The timing—occurring just before the anniversary of Kristallnacht—adds a haunting resonance that has allowed the narrative of Jewish persecution to be put at the center of coverage and condemnation.
This framing, both directly and indirectly, echoes Israeli and Zionist propaganda reliant on manufactured antisemitism and long-standing racist tropes about Arabs and Muslim; it perpetuates a narrative of eternal victimhood that is wielded to justify the ongoing extermination of 2.2 million Palestinians. And thus our media gives permission for violence – American, European and Israeli – toward Arabs and Muslims. It gives permission for the U.S.-backed Israeli eradication of Palestinians because, we are told again and again, that Jews are not safe anywhere.
This framing, both directly and indirectly, echoes Israeli and Zionist propaganda reliant on manufactured antisemitism and long-standing racist tropes about Arabs and Muslim; it perpetuates a narrative of eternal victimhood that is wielded to justify the ongoing extermination of 2.2 million Palestinians.
This has lent itself to fabricated stories – about beheaded babies, babies in ovens, mass rapes of Israeli women, command centers under hospitals, UNRWA involvement in October 7th, journalists as “terrorists”, unfettered antisemitism on college campuses and pogroms against Jews in Amsterdam – defining American, Canadian and European coverage of the genocide of Palestinians. The claims and experiences of Israelis, of pro-Israel Jews are presented as sacrosanct, to question them is antisemitic; it is to deny and support the sort of dehumanization and violence that led to the Jewish Holocaust.
The claims and experiences of Palestinians, of Arabs and Muslims, might be tragic but we must always consider Jewish suffering and trauma first and foremost – that is what must always be protected, always at the helm of our outrage.
The coverage of the anti-racist counter-attacks in Amsterdam exemplified that: on the same day Western leaders flocked to condemn a non-existent pogrom against Jews, the UN Office on Human Rights released a report indicating that 70% of those killed in Gaza are women and children – mainly children, between the ages of 5 and 9. And the lack of condemnation, of outrage – even acknowledgement – of that from Western leaders and newsrooms, who are culpable in that 70%, is why there is condemnation of a pogrom that never happened.
“Olé, olé!
Olé, olé, olé!
Let the IDF win and fuck the Arabs!
Olé, olé!
Olé, olé, olé!
Why is school out in Gaza? There are no children left there!”
On the night of November 7th, there was an anti-Jewish pogrom in Amsterdam as young Dutch Moroccans on scooters descended onto the streets to assault Israeli Jewish football fans.
At least, that’s the story being told in Western newsrooms and by American and European leaders as the Israeli extermination of Gaza – especially the north – continues unencumbered.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called it a “horrific antisemitic incident.”
President Joe Biden released a statement on X saying “the Antisemitic attacks on Israeli soccer fans in Amsterdam are despicable and echo dark moments in history when Jews were persecuted.” He ended by reiterating “We must relentlessly fight Antisemitism, wherever it emerges.”
Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof promised that “the perpetrators will be tracked down and prosecuted.”
EU commissioner Ursula Von Der Leyen gave the reminder that “antisemitism has absolutely no place in Europe.”
Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated “the news out of Amsterdam last night is horrifying. This is a dark moment for our world — and one we have seen before.”
The Anti-Defamation League called it a “modern day pogrom”, its CEO Jonathan Greenblatt drawing comparisons to Kristallnacht, saying that “Jews on the streets of Amsterdam were hunted, chased, attacked and forced to hide from an antisemitic mob whose goal was to harm as many Jews as possible.”
Headlines across U.S. news coverage, especially, signaled similar alarm: “Violent Attacks in Amsterdam Tied to Antisemitism”, “‘Scooter Youths,’ Not Soccer Fans, Hunt Jews in Amsterdam”, “Israeli soccer fans suffer ‘anti-Semitic attacks’ in violent Amsterdam incident: Officials”, “Amsterdam bans protests after ‘antisemitic squads’ attack Israeli soccer fans”, “Israeli Soccer Fans Targeted in ‘Antisemitic’ Attacks In Amsterdam”.
But that’s not what happened.
On November 5th, hundreds of Maccabi Tel Aviv fans – reportedly accompanied by Mossad agents – had flown into the city for a game against Ajax FC. It was reported, in the preceding days, that pro-Palestinian groups were planning a large protest outside the stadium against the presence of the Israeli football team. In the two days before the game, there were many reported incidents of violence and intimidation from the Israeli fans – including anti-Arab chants, attacking taxi drivers, ripping down Palestinian flags and attacking homes with any Palestinian imagery.
Emerging video evidence and testimonies from Amsterdam residents (here, here and here for instance) indicate that the initial violence came from Maccabi Tel Aviv fans, who also disrupted a moment of silence for the Valencia flood victims.
But despite that footage and Amsterdammer testimonies, coverage – across international media, especially in the United States – has failed to contextualize the counter-attacks against the anti-Arab Israeli mob.
Where there have been mentions of the actions of the Maccabi fans, the critical context of anti-Arab violence and chants is simply an additional detail versus the foundation of the counter-violence. The context of the violence and racism against Arabs is also downplayed, with less severe language being used to describe it.
Note this excerpt from a Reuters report on the Amsterdam incident:
Videos on social media showed riot police in action, with some attackers shouting anti-Israeli slurs. Footage also showed Maccabi Tel Aviv supporters chanting anti-Arab slogans before Thursday evening’s match.
Wishing death to Arabs at the hands of the IDF and mocking dead Palestinian children, we are told, is a slogan. Forcing Israelis to say “Free Palestine!” is a slur. Through the use of these two words, the weight of violence and of blame is immediately shifted to those victimized.
Then there’s this Channel 4 news report, which shows a bit of a masterful narrative manipulation. It begins with images of people draped in Palestinian flags, marching in the streets of Amsterdam, with the voiceover talking about the ‘shocking’ violence, and how “men on scooters hunted down Israelis to beat them”. We immediately see footage of random Israelis being beaten in the streets and then a jump to the Dutch PM condemning these actions. When presented this way, it is shocking – your initial introduction to this story is that Israeli Jewish football fans were ‘hunted’ and assaulted in the streets by pro-Palestinian hooligans.
A little over a minute into the three-minute report, we move onto what is the critical context: 36 hours of violence and racist slurs and chants by the Maccabi fans. The report spends about 40 seconds going over it, only to return to framing the incident as antisemitic. It concludes with a brief acknowledgement that Maccabi fans have a history of anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian racism but its final note is about the historical memory of Jews with regards to being ‘hunted and chased’ in the streets.
Nevermind the present experience of Arabs, of Muslims being exterminated in their homes, hospitals, schools and tents by a Jewish military.
It’s also worth mentioning here that during the course of writing this piece, Sky News posted and deleted a video report on the racist Israeli mob’s instigation and violence — only to repost the report, with its content and copy edited to center the “antisemitism” framing. In other words, a real-time manufacturing of a story to fit a specific narrative, despite all the evidence available. Few things have captured the intentional complicity of the news media, in the genocide of Palestinians, as transparently and poignantly as this.
The coverage of events in Amsterdam reveals a troubling, but transparent and tired pattern: it serves as a rhetorical tool to justify violence against Arabs and Muslims, whether in Gaza or within the streets of Europe.
The coverage of events in Amsterdam reveals a troubling, but transparent and tired pattern: it serves as a rhetorical tool to justify violence against Arabs and Muslims, whether in Gaza or within the streets of Europe. Each narrative, whether centered around October 7th or November 7th, invariably positions Jewish suffering and historical trauma at its core, thus reinforcing the notion of a Jewish right to violence. Any contextualization that portrays Israelis or Jewish Zionist as aggressors threatens to disrupt this carefully curated monopoly on suffering.
In the case of Amsterdam, the media framing and sensational headlines reinforce an image of the Israeli mob as victims, besieged by an enraged Arab mob that “hunts Jews” in the streets. The timing—occurring just before the anniversary of Kristallnacht—adds a haunting resonance that has allowed the narrative of Jewish persecution to be put at the center of coverage and condemnation.
This framing, both directly and indirectly, echoes Israeli and Zionist propaganda reliant on manufactured antisemitism and long-standing racist tropes about Arabs and Muslim; it perpetuates a narrative of eternal victimhood that is wielded to justify the ongoing extermination of 2.2 million Palestinians. And thus our media gives permission for violence – American, European and Israeli – toward Arabs and Muslims. It gives permission for the U.S.-backed Israeli eradication of Palestinians because, we are told again and again, that Jews are not safe anywhere.
This framing, both directly and indirectly, echoes Israeli and Zionist propaganda reliant on manufactured antisemitism and long-standing racist tropes about Arabs and Muslim; it perpetuates a narrative of eternal victimhood that is wielded to justify the ongoing extermination of 2.2 million Palestinians.
This has lent itself to fabricated stories – about beheaded babies, babies in ovens, mass rapes of Israeli women, command centers under hospitals, UNRWA involvement in October 7th, journalists as “terrorists”, unfettered antisemitism on college campuses and pogroms against Jews in Amsterdam – defining American, Canadian and European coverage of the genocide of Palestinians. The claims and experiences of Israelis, of pro-Israel Jews are presented as sacrosanct, to question them is antisemitic; it is to deny and support the sort of dehumanization and violence that led to the Jewish Holocaust.
The claims and experiences of Palestinians, of Arabs and Muslims, might be tragic but we must always consider Jewish suffering and trauma first and foremost – that is what must always be protected, always at the helm of our outrage.
The coverage of the anti-racist counter-attacks in Amsterdam exemplified that: on the same day Western leaders flocked to condemn a non-existent pogrom against Jews, the UN Office on Human Rights released a report indicating that 70% of those killed in Gaza are women and children – mainly children, between the ages of 5 and 9. And the lack of condemnation, of outrage – even acknowledgement – of that from Western leaders and newsrooms, who are culpable in that 70%, is why there is condemnation of a pogrom that never happened.
