By Thijl Sunier – Those who were in the Netherlands between 6-8 November could not possibly have missed it. Riots broke out around a football match between the Israeli Maccabi Tel Aviv team and Ajax, which took place in Amsterdam’s main football station Amsterdam Arena. The clashes were between the supporters of Maccabi and purportedly Dutch-Moroccan youngsters. In the night the city became the scene of a grim confrontation between several groups and the police. Although it soon turned out that Maccabi Tel Aviv hooligans started the violence, raiding the inner city of Amsterdam, shouting slogans against Palestinians, harassing women wearing a hijab, molesting Dutch-Moroccan taxi drivers, tearing off a Palestinian flag from a building, and glorifying the war in Gaza, right-wing media, opinion-makers, politicians, and pro-Israel activists quickly framed the riots as acts of antisemitism committed by Muslims. Extreme right-wing politician Geert Wilders incited the situation with his usual rhetoric on social media in which he described the riots as “razzias”, “a jihad against Jews”, and “a pogrom”.
Even though it soon turned out that the situation was at least more complicated than an ‘outburst of antisemitism’ by Muslims, the depiction of the events as something inspired by Islamic principles, was widely embraced, and endorsed publicly. The Dutch prime minister took over this frame, calling the riots “pure antisemitic violence by degenerated youth with a migration background”. One member of the government stated that “a majority of the Muslim youth does not subscribe to our values”, and another stated that “antisemitism is in the genes of Moroccans”. So much for the reporting of the situation.
Because Islam in Europe is my field of expertise, I was not surprised when journalists contacted me to give an explanation. As I was abroad for work then, I had only superficially followed the news, so I turned down the requests. And, frankly speaking, I felt a bit relieved that I had this excuse. Although I have sufficient experience in dealing with media, to comment on the events in Amsterdam would have been particularly challenging for several reasons. Many journalists, including those who contacted me, started with the question why Muslims are antisemitic. The dominant image that the riots were instigated by a combination of alleged inherent anti-judaism in Islam, and failed integration of young Muslims, determines the course of the interview. If you disagree with this frame, such as me, you have to debunk its simplicity. This puts you at a disadvantage from the outset, particularly when journalists expect quick and unequivocal answers.
Another challenge in this particular case is the current polarisation in society about the war in Gaza, and the heated debates and ongoing controversies about Islam and migration in the Netherlands. I have an opinion about these issues, and I will always express that opinion, but journalists ask for ‘neutral objective facts’ from experts, even if they do not exist.
What would be the contribution of anthropologists is such challenging situations? Is there a particular angle from which anthropologists could make sense of the events? Although I do not have the illusion that the media are interested in an ‘anthropological approach’, I am convinced that such an approach is essential and needed, especially in such complex situations as the riots in Amsterdam. Let me give a few suggestions. Anthropologists study human agency under specific circumstances, power configurations, and in particular cultural and social environments. Anthropology is about the ways in which people experience and make sense of the world, including the big issues in a world that is on fire. This is what our lamented colleague Thomas Hylland Eriksen called ‘small places, large issues’. We are interested in the experiences, perceptions, and the narratives of ordinary people also in dramatic events.
The events in Amsterdam, immediately reminded me of one of my favourite books Some Trouble with Cows by anthropologist Beth Roy (1994). It deals with a communal conflict and shows that in order to understand its complexity, we have to study the multitude of layers of meaning, perspective, and interpretation by those involved. Not the imagined ultimate cause of a conflict is essential, but the narratives around it and the convictions that are being developed. Do not talk about people but with them.
When journalists ask me something about Islam or Muslims, my usual answer is always: ‘ask them about their experiences and opinions, not a white non-Muslim professor’. It is a shame that in the current conflict only a particular selection of Jewish people is being asked about their experiences. Jews who are critical about Israel, or refute the idea that Muslims are to blame, are often ignored. According to some, the premise that everything is complex, diverse, and multi-layered, is an anthropological cliché. I strongly disagree. If we would give in to simplified frames and comply with the requirements of an in-depth interview of maximum two minutes, we lose our credibility as anthropologists.
Thijl Sunier is Emeritus Professor of Islam in Europe at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
Thank you, Thijl. To anthropologists what you write is obvious (but I still enjoy and admire the way you put it so clearly), but I particularly hope that others (journalists, politicians, the “general public”) for whom it is not obvious will read your blog.
Violence is of course a broad term, and some might wonder if we can compare beating someone till they end in a hospital with shouting slogans and tearing flags, which is all unfriendly behavior of course.
But you mention actual phisical violence from the Israeli side, “harassing women wearing a hijab, molesting Dutch-Moroccan taxi drivers”, could you provide a source for that information please?
‘Although it soon turned out that Maccabi Tel Aviv hooligans started the violence, raiding the inner city of Amsterdam, shouting slogans against Palestinians, harassing women wearing a hijab, molesting Dutch-Moroccan taxi drivers, tearing off a Palestinian flag from a building, and glorifying the war in Gaza, right-wing media, opinion-makers’.
An interesting observation. The Maccabi’s started it. However, the people (yes I will say it) hunted down for being Jewish or Israeli, are not necessarily (and probably) the same persons as the hooligans you mention. Interesting groupist approach to say, because A as part of identity X were violent, B of identity X were attacked as the ones who ‘started it’.
Furthermore, the comment ‘It is a shame that in the current conflict only a particular selection of Jewish people is being asked about their experiences’. Its shared here as a added commentary or lament, but requires another blog at least, before it would make sense where this is coming from. Why would the framing of muslims you sketch out necessarily come from a ‘particular selection of Jewish people’? As seems to be implied here.