- Anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism in schools or places related to them constitute a significant problem in a number of Western countries. In the coming years, this issue will have to be addressed internationally in much more detail. The major question is how much anti-Semitism do Jewish children encounter in schools? Other important issues are the nature of school curricula, the attitudes of the teachers, the presentation of the Holocaust in schools, security in and around Jewish schools, attacks on Jewish students outside of schools, and so on.
- In the Netherlands, substantial research has been undertaken on problems Jewish children encounter in schools. Various projects have been developed to deal with this discrimination. Some information is also available about the harassment of Jewish students outside of schools. As so little is known internationally about these important issues, assessment of the Dutch activities in this field can be useful as a model for similar analyses in other countries.
- The arrival of a large, nonselective Muslim immigration is probably the most negative event for Dutch Jewry since the Second World War. Among these immigrants are a significant number who have brought with them far greater prejudices against Jews than were commonly seen previously among the Dutch population. Research findings show that students of Moroccan and Turkish descent are disproportionately anti-Semitic compared to Dutch students. The problems have persisted over a long period.
- Dutch programs developed to fight anti-Semitism have had a positive effect on a certain number of Muslim children. However, large percentages of them are not positively influenced. The percentage of Moroccan and Turkish students who remain anti-Semitic is still high. One important drawback of the main program is that it deals with the Holocaust and the situation in the Middle East together. The Jewish community has protested in vain against this several times.
Anti-Semitism and anti-Israelism in schools or places related to them constitute a significant problem in a number of Western countries. In the coming years, this issue will have to be addressed internationally in much more detail. Already in 2002 a book, The Lost Territories of the Republic, was published on anti-Semitism, racism, and sexism in French schools.
A study published in Norway in 2011, for instance, found that one-third of Jewish students in Oslo are verbally or physically harassed at least two to three times a month. Fifty-one percent of the students interviewed regard the word Jew as a pejorative.
The major question is how much anti-Semitism do Jewish children encounter in schools? Another important issue is the nature of the teaching materials and the attitudes of the teachers. This also raises a further fundamental question: to what extent are some schools a breeding ground for the adult anti-Semites of the next generation? Yet the issue to be studied has many more aspects, for instance, concerning the teaching of the Holocaust in schools, the security of Jewish schools, attacks on Jewish students outside of schools, and so on.
The Center for Information and Documentation on Israel (CIDI) has reported for a decade already about harassment that Jewish schoolchildren encounter. Substantial research on these problems has been undertaken. A variety of projects have been developed to deal with this discrimination. Some information is also available about various problems Jewish children encounter outside of their schools. As so little is known internationally about these important issues, the assessments of Dutch research in this field can be useful as a model for similar analyses in other countries.
One must be aware, however, that no detailed overview of all the problems involved can be written at this time. It would require far more research and the resultant findings would be more appropriate for a book-size report.
Letters from CJO
The umbrella organization of Dutch Jewry, Centraal Joods Overleg (CJO), considers the problems Jewish children encounter in schools an urgent priority in the framework of overall anti-Semitism in the Netherlands. This is clear from the attention it gave to this issue in two letters sent to the Second Chamber of the Dutch parliament in 2010 and 2011, respectively. They were sent in anticipation of unprecedented plenary parliamentary debates on anti-Semitism in the country.
In its letter of June 2010, CJO wrote that it “requests that attention be given to the situation in the educational system. An ongoing stream of incidents and reports from the educational system indicates that students who are Jewish are constantly and negatively reminded of it. The same is true for students who are homosexuals or even ‘suspected’ of being homosexuals….”
For us, it is unacceptable that these attacks are taking place and that heads of schools are not making efforts to correct the situation. The reality is-students are harassed because of their religion or inclinations until they leave school. Their lockers are broken into and covered with swastikas. They are constantly cursed at and harassed by their fellow students. They find anti-Semitic graffiti [in their schools.] They are being educated in an environment to find their place in society at institutions where the horrors of the Holocaust, in many cases, cannot be taught.
No school in the Netherlands should be prevented from teaching about the Holocaust-a pitch-black period in Dutch history.
CJO Writes Again
The first parliamentary debate on anti-Semitism, which took place in June 2010, hardly produced results.When at the beginning of 2011 a parliamentary-commission debate took place, CJO wrote another letter. The school issue played an important role here as well. CJO expanded on some of the concerns: “…Holocaust commemoration and education should no longer one-sidedly emphasize the similarities between the Holocaust and ‘other serious matters in today’s world.’ It should be made clear that genocide is something fundamentally different from a political conflict where there are victims, however terrible one might find that.”
CJO added that its views were shared by Marjan Schwegman, director of the National Institute of War Documentation (NIOD). She wrote:
Various historical experiences are being reduced to a common denominator. I have seen curricula where I found that experiences are far too easily related to each other. It is incorrect in education to place the Holocaust and the Middle East at the same level [because a number of Muslim students do not want to hear about the Holocaust]. It is essential to underline the unique character of the Holocaust.
A government document of 13 September 2010 titled “The Propagation of Key Values of the Democratic State of Law” says that a newly planned project of the government is support of the teaching program “The Second World War in Perspective.” In it, Jewish and Muslim youngsters teach together about the Second World War, the Holocaust, and developments in the Middle East. As we have already explained, this is the wrong approach. We object to these associations.
In the parliamentary-commission debate on anti-Semitism in February 2011, MP Kees van der Staaij of the Christian SGP party said: “The infrastructure of anti-Semitism has to be attacked. In education and schoolbooks, attention has to be given to the Holocaust. Still, much is going wrong.” Van der Staaij added: “There are history books in elementary schools where, when religions are discussed, Christians, Hindus, and Muslims are mentioned but Jews are not. It is also written that Jerusalem is an important city for Christians and Muslims, but isn’t it also for Jews? That is something which should not be allowed in schoolbooks that are still being used.”
MP Joram van Klaveren of the Freedom Party said in the debate that the Dutch intelligence service, the AIVD, already on various occasions had noted that the increased anti-Semitism in the Netherlands can be related to the number of adherents to Islam. He observed: “In 2004 the organization said that the increase of anti-Semitism among high school students must be attributed to Muslim youngsters. The report noted that the anti-Semitism derives from the Muslim views of the students.”
Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner, for his part, said the education minister had already announced that a legal arrangement for recording discrimination and anti-Semitism in schools would be established.
MP Tofik Dibi (Green Left) asked whether the integration minister could provide information on which schools cannot discuss the Holocaust in history lessons and why not. “Does he know that, and if not, will he try to find out? Is he willing to start a discussion with Muslim organizations or the LOM, the National Consultation of Minorities [Landelijk Overleg Minderheden] about Muslim interpretations that possibly stimulate anti-Semitism?”
The problem of anti-Semitism in schools had already been addressed in less detailed fashion several times in the past. For instance, in 2004, Labor Party MPs Gerdi Verbeet and Mariette Hamer directed questions to then-education minister Maria van der Hoeven, asking her what she intended to do about the increasing manifestations of anti-Semitism in schools. The parliamentarians were referring to a CIDI report on Dutch anti-Semitism in 2003 and early 2004. They also asked whether this report would lead the government to reconsider its plan to exclude the Second World War, the persecution of the Jews, and the Holocaust from the core curricula for elementary education.
A Parliamentarian Who Wants to Manipulate History
Over the years it has become increasingly clear that the teaching of the Holocaust and the Middle East conflict together is the beginning of a slippery slope. During a New Year’s reception at a forum of non-Western immigrants and their descendants in 2009, the then Dutch integration minister Eberhard van der Laan said that, while one should not equate the Holocaust and the Nakba, both sides should study the problems of the other side. The minister thus manipulated history. The Holocaust occurred partly in the Netherlands and concerned its Jewish community directly, whose members were largely wiped out. The Nakba had nothing to do with the Netherlands.
What Van der Laan did not say was that the profound sadness experienced by the Jews was the result of the genocide of their families by mass murderers. The grief of the Palestinians stemmed from the consequences of a war that they and their Arab allies had initiated, with potentially genocidal aims, against Jews in what became Israel.
The minister’s remarks were later exploited by Dibi. In a parliamentary question he asked Van der Laan and Justice Minister Hirsch Ballin: “Do you remember your statement that ‘Arabs have to study the Holocaust and Israelis the “Nakba”‘…. Are you willing to promote this for Dutch Muslims and Jews?”
In early 2011, Dibi continued his efforts to manipulate and distort education. He said he had been promised by two ministers, in answer to parliamentary questions, that they would investigate how high school students could study each other’s history. He referred to major themes such as the Holocaust and the Nakba, on the ground that both concern the Middle East conflict. He asserted that when tensions in Israel and “Palestine” increase, violence, insults, and cursing in Dutch schools increase as well. He wanted to know what had come out of the ministers’ promises.
Here, though, Dibi not only manipulated history but current reality as well. The violence in the Netherlands comes from one side-the Muslims against Jews and not vice versa. Second, if one also has to study in Dutch schools the history of a major group of immigrants that has nothing to do with the Holocaust, then Jews have no reason to be specifically involved. Dibi is of Moroccan descent and the Nakba is not part of Moroccan history. But, for instance, pogroms against Jews are part of it, and thus in the framework of studying Moroccan history this murderous violence should be noted.
2002: The Anne Frank Foundation on Anti-Semitism
Already in 2002, the Anne Frank Foundation drew public attention to increasing anti-Semitism among youngsters. This institute stated that it had become aware of mounting incidents “from teachers who, for instance, when teaching about the Second World War and the persecution of the Jews, received anti-Semitic comments from their students. The consequences of 9/11 and of the war between Israel and the Palestinians, cause more and more disruptions when teaching about the Holocaust.”
Jan van Kooten, head of education of the Anne Frank Foundation, said: “One example is when students from the town of Monnickendam were not allowed by their parents to visit the Jewish Historical Museum. The parents did not want their children to learn about Jewish culture because they claimed that ‘Jews are bad people.'”
The Anne Frank Foundation asserted that teachers should not allow the subject of Jew-hatred to be pushed off the agenda. “In order to understand society today, it is necessary to have an understanding of the Second World War. Many current discussions have their roots there.”
From the CIDI Reports
In its analysis of Dutch anti-Semitism in 2003, CIDI concluded that the number of insults against Jews continued to increase over 2002 and that in particular, recognizably-dressed Jews were the victims of threats and insults. The report quoted the then Amsterdam alderman in charge of education, Rob Oudkerk (Labor), who told a newspaper that several teachers had informed him that the subject of the Holocaust had become almost impossible to teach. He said that this not only created an intimidating atmosphere but, in some cases, led to telephone threats to the teachers such as: “We know where your child goes to school.” As a result, Jewish teachers are inclined to conceal their Jewish identity.
A gentile teacher with a Jewish name reported that when he passed some students in school, they called him a “dirty Jew.” Another teacher was quoted as saying: “In my previous school…I sometimes said in order to confront students about anti-Semitism, that part of my family is Jewish. Now I don’t dare do that anymore…this is how one must have felt at the end of the 1930s.”
This teacher is wrong, however. At the end of the 1930s in democratic Netherlands, before the German occupation, Dutchmen were not intimidated to such an extent that they feared revealing that members of their family were Jewish.
In its annual reports on anti-Semitism over the years, CIDI has cited numerous specific cases, of which only a few can be noted here.
In September 2001, CIDI was informed that a Jewish girl in an Amsterdam high school was insulted continuously for years with cries of “dirty Jew.” Her father said that after September 11, the insults had become even worse. CIDI contacted the school, but its management did not want to discuss the issue and denied that anything had happened.
In December that year, CIDI received a complaint about a Jewish girl in a high school in the southern part of the Netherlands who had long been subjected to anti-Semitic insults. On the day the complaint was received, she found a portrait of Hitler on her locker. The school wrote to the parents of the offenders, yet the harassment continued.
In addition to some violent incidents, the 2003 CIDI report contains tens of pages describing threats and insults against Jews, several of which involved schools. In one school, a Jewish girl was not allowed to participate in table-tennis games because some students told her it was “forbidden for Jews.”
During the same year, CIDI quoted an article from the weekly Vrij Nederland about anti-Semitism in the Netherlands. A history teacher reported that “just a few moments ago, a boy called his classmate ‘cancer Jew.'” When she drew a Star of David on the drawing board, one of the students demanded that it be removed, explaining, “I hate Jews.” In two cases a swastika was drawn on a work done on the Second World War. “Jews we have to kill” sang a Moroccan youngster subsequently. Ten minutes later a Turkish boy in the same class sang “Jews are to be killed.”
In March 2004, CIDI received a complaint about regularly occurring anti-Semitic incidents in a trade school in Dordrecht. One girl claimed that the Holocaust had not taken place. Another said she was willing to blow herself up because she hated Jews, and she “understood” why Hitler murdered the Jews. The class teacher responded by saying that nothing else could be expected.
CIDI also reported that
in 2004, two Jewish boys at a high school in the province of Utrecht were being insulted regularly for several months. When they walked by other students, hissing sounds were heard, or they were insulted by shouts of “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas.” The offenders were of North African as well as Dutch autochthonous origin. One student asked another student what his plans were after his final exam. The answer was “I’m going to gas Jews.” The school then reprimanded the main perpetrator after which no more incidents took place.
In April 2005, a complaint reached CIDI that a Jewish boy in the second class of a high school in the center of the Netherlands had endured anti-Semitic incidents for two years. For weeks he was called a “cancer Jew.” He was told: “What does a Jew do in a rowboat? He drowns.” After being spoken to, the offender said that she did not know what she was saying and would refrain from insulting him again.
In early 2005, CIDI was informed that a Jewish girl was regularly subjected to anti-Semitic remarks, including some from her history teacher. When the Holocaust was discussed in class, he forced this girl to read aloud about the gas chambers, knowing that her father was a survivor. After complaints, the teacher apologized but continued to make malicious remarks about Auschwitz.
In 2006, a Jewish boy was insulted by a classmate who called him “cancer Jew.” A girl in his class formed an “anti-Jews club.”
In its report on the years 2008 and 2009, CIDI wrote that problems are sometimes caused by parents. For instance, a mother of a child shouted at a teacher: “Our children are entitled to good education, that is what you are paid for.” The teacher asked her to stop. The mother then said: “Dirty Jewess, dirty Jewess. Don’t point at me, put your hand away. I’ll scratch your eyes out.” Some other mothers restrained her and asked her to stop. She then shouted “Cancer Jew!” to another teacher, who asked her to listen to her son who cried “Stop it mother, stop it.”
During Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009, there were three incidents within a few days at a school in Rotterdam. After a class picture was taken, it turned out that two Muslim students in it were giving the “Heil Hitler” salute. A day later “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas” was heard in the corridor, and a bit later the same day students saying “Jews are murderers, we have seen that on Al Jazeera and it speaks the truth.”
CIDI also reported that at a school in Amsterdam-Slotervaart, a neighborhood with many Muslim children, some students shouted anti-Semitic slogans in January 2009. The teacher stopped the lesson, as always in such cases, and tried without prejudice to explain the situation in Gaza. Almost half of the students did not listen but shouted even more extreme slogans. It was impossible to continue, and the teacher called the security staff. This is a school that gives much attention to the Dutch constitution, Second World War projects, visits to Auschwitz, Anne Frank, the Jewish Historical Museum, Jews in Morocco, and so on. Yet CIDI states that such incidents have increased in the school.
The Dutch Context at the Time
The schools’ acceptance of anti-Semitic incidents should be seen in the context of the mood of the time. For many years, extreme tolerance prevailed in the Netherlands for excesses by Muslim students in schools. The authors Margalit Kleijwegt and Max van Weezel recounted in a book how before Christmas in 2002, at the trade school ROC Amsterdam, students prepared a collage of texts and pictures that appealed to them. In it they included pictures of their hero Osama Bin Laden. A number of teachers-among them a Jewish one-refused to accept the students’ Christmas gift.
Even more significant was the reaction of the then chair of the school to these students’ glorification of one of the world’s worst ideological murderers. She felt the teachers’ reaction was excessive and said they should look at what the students had put up in the cafeteria: “pictures of Bin Laden and swastikas.”
This chair of the school could somehow imagine that a Jew might be shocked by that. She concluded, however, that as far as the worldview of a large number of students was concerned: “We have to learn to live with it.” This educator, too, showed more understanding for non-Western immigrants with criminal mindsets and how to appease them than for the feelings of a shocked Jew.
Dutch Holocaust scholar Johannes Houwink ten Cate remarked:
The anti-Israel attitudes in the Netherlands are even transmitted via elementary education. At the end of 2006, I was watching the news together with an eleven-year-old boy. The news showed that the Israeli army had made a mistake and caused civilian casualties. The boy didn’t believe that it was a mistake.
It seemed strange to me and I said: “Listen, you know that in general, the Israeli army tries to avoid civilian casualties.” He replied, “I do not believe it. My teachers told me otherwise in school.” He did not want to accept my views and this was a Dutch child of eleven.
Problems in Amsterdam
In Amsterdam where, together with its suburb Amstelveen, close to half of Dutch Jews live, problems of anti-Semitism in schools surfaced early. An incident that drew much publicity occurred at a commemoration of war dead in the De Baarsjes neighborhood in May 2003, when Moroccan youngsters played soccer with the memorial wreaths there. The publicity also revealed information from teachers that Moroccan students in particular made hateful remarks about Jews or otherwise disrupted their classes.
In 2003, the Amsterdam municipality wrote to seventy high schools in the city asking them to report on problems of anti-Semitism, hatred of homosexuals, or other forms of discrimination. This request came in response to reports from teachers that they did not dare teach about the Holocaust for fear of negative reactions from, in particular, Moroccan students. Only one school replied to the municipality. Alderman Oudkerk considered the schools’ noncooperation unacceptable, saying it seemed that schools tried to hide the truth so as to avoid a negative image or a further escalation of the problems.
Rijk Vlaanderen, a teacher from the one school that did cooperate, said that when he had taught about Judaism, the Holocaust, and the creation of Israel in class, one of the students said, “I hate Jews.” Vlaanderen then asked, “And if I were a Jew?” The student replied, “I would hate you as well.” He also mentioned that a student had said before a visit to the Anne Frank House: “I won’t put my foot into a place where Jews live.” The teacher also said he had heard “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas,” “Allah will destroy them all,” and after September 11, 2001, “This should happen more often.” He stressed that a small group was involved-almost all of them male Moroccans.
That same year, the Anne Frank House in Amsterdam organized a meeting of Holocaust survivors who visited schools to tell about their wartime experiences. The reason for the meeting was that one of them had encountered anti-Semitic remarks in a school and the teacher present had not intervened. Those invited said that most of their experiences were positive. One, however, mentioned that a Moroccan girl had asked whether she didn’t think “Sharon was worse than Hitler.” In another school a student asked her why this had specifically happened to the Jews. Another student responded: “Because they killed Christ.”
In 2003, the Vredeseducatie (Peace Education) Foundation investigated the experiences of a number of teachers in various schools. The report concluded that not only students but also teachers had very little understanding of the problems involved. Some teachers did not understand that Moroccan youngsters identify strongly with the Palestinian attitude in the Middle East. At the same time, Moroccan youngsters did not understand the sensitivity of the subject of the persecution of Jews.
A Pilot Project
It became increasingly clear that both the Second World War and the Middle East conflict were very sensitive subjects in teaching history. They led to extreme emotional reactions and multiple discussions. Hence, the then Amsterdam mayor Job Cohen and Alderman Ahmed Aboutaleb (both Labor) launched a project that they called the Citywide Offensive against Discrimination and Intolerance (Stadsbreed offensief tegen discriminatie en intolerantie).
In April 2004, as part of this effort, a pilot project of the program “Second World War in Perspective” was instituted in which students of Moroccan descent taught students in thirteen Amsterdam trade-school classes about the Second World War and the Middle East conflict. The purpose was to fight discrimination and, in particular, anti-Semitic expressions by these students. An important aim of this project was to promote a common historical consciousness between the descendants of immigrants and the autochthonous Dutch.
In September 2004, a final report on the findings was published.
It included a measurement of prejudicial attitudes toward Jews. Before the project began, only 32% of the Moroccans thought Jews were as nice as other people; after the project this had increased to 50% of Moroccans. For others, data was only available after the project-43% for Turkish students, 83% for Dutch students, 77% for Suriname students.
After the project, only 31% of Moroccan students considered it a problem that Jews are discriminated against. Forty-three percent of the students of Turkish origin held that opinion. For Dutch students the figure was 58% and for Suriname students 72%.
The percentage of Moroccans who before the project thought they could be friends with a Jew was 39%; afterward it increased to 50%. The percentage of Moroccans who thought Jews wanted to rule the world was 32% before the project; this declined to 11% after it. Among Turkish students 26% held this opinion, among Suriname students 10%, and among Dutch students 3%.
The report addressed many other issues. It pointed out that the project’s target group was mainly students of Moroccan origin. These students strongly identified with the issues in the Middle East and were incapable of separating the problems of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict from what happened during the Second World War. The project aimed to link the two subjects by using terminology such as “humiliation,” “respect,” and “fellow travelers.” The aim was to enable these youngsters to understand the consequences of discrimination and anti-Semitism in the Netherlands today. As noted previously, however, linking these two unrelated issues is highly problematic and the Jewish community has expressed its disapproval to the parliament.
The report stated that the municipality was informed that problems involved in teaching persecution of Jews are mentioned mainly by teachers in trade schools. It was stressed that many of these students lack an appropriate concept of time and history. What should be added is that the major multicultural population in these schools knows very little about what happened during the Second World War and what its consequences were. There is a large number of Moroccan students in Dutch trade schools; many of them have expressed frustration about the problems in the Middle East.
At special education schools where children with learning disabilities are taught, history lessons are generally not given. Yet, in this specific case, students in these schools have also been involved in the project.
The project focused substantially on anti-Semitism, for which it used as a definition: “behavior from which it seems that there is a negative attitude toward Jews.” Cursing people as “cancer Jew” and drawing swastikas were given as examples.
The report also stated that according to the teachers’ testimonies, most students do not possess a profoundly anti-Semitic attitude. It claimed, surprisingly yet far from convincingly, that according to teachers and peer educators, the frequent pejorative use of the word Jew does not necessarily indicate an actual negative attitude toward Jews. Most students claimed that they had as much respect for a Jew as for other people.
According to the report, a small number of students-in particular boys of Moroccan origin-indeed exhibit anti-Semitic behavior. This manifests itself in carving swastikas into school benches and shouting anti-Semitic slogans such as “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas.” As these youngsters hardly ever come into contact with Jews, this does not lead to actual misbehavior toward the Jewish community. These were the report’s claims at the time, yet it is highly doubtful whether they still hold true today.
The report also states that, based on conversations with teachers and peer educators, the use of “seemingly” anti-Semitic curses is considered totally normal. According to them, this should not be seen as reflecting a negative attitude. It is attributed to rebellion inherent at a certain age-provoking rather than discriminating. In view of how anti-Semitism has meanwhile developed and expanded in the Netherlands, these statements should not be accepted at face value. The feelings expressed may well lead to verbal and physical aggression in tense situations, for instance, when there is increased violence in the Middle East.
Interviews with teachers and students, the report states, reveal that Moroccan and Turkish youngsters’ negative viewpoints about Jews are mainly fed by the Middle East conflict and developments in Dutch society. According to the report, Dutch Muslims strongly identify with the fate of Muslims elsewhere in the world. Middle Eastern affairs are followed closely and each attack on the Muslim community in that region is considered an attack on the Muslim community in the Netherlands. The findings say these youngsters believe that after the Second World War, the Jews confiscated the Muslims’ land there.
There is abundant information that the actuality as presented, for instance, by Arabic broadcasting stations has an important and often even determining role in the opinions formed by some of the students. This was confirmed by Selami Yüksel, then the second vice chairman of the CMO, the Contact Organization for Muslims and the Authorities (Contactorgaan Moslims en Overheid). According to him the influence of media, both Dutch and Arab, increases anti-Semitism. Yet it seems from more recent reports that only some young Muslims watch Moroccan and Turkish TV channels and that the percentage who do so is lower than that of their parents. Other problems, however, emerge from Al Jazeera.
The 2004 report concludes that anti-Semitic verbal expressions and attitudes of Moroccan and Turkish youngsters are not so much an attack on Dutch Jews as on Israeli policies. Here the report does not seem to summarize the findings properly. It would have been more accurate to write that Muslim anti-Israelism leads to Muslim anti-Semitism.
The report analyzes how the “seemingly anti-Semitic expressions” should be viewed. It concludes that the context is important for analyzing their meaning. When youngsters of similar origin call each other “Jews,” the expression is anti-Semitic but an anti-Jewish intent is lacking. This is very different from directly addressing Jews as “cancer Jews.”
At present, a number of years later, this conclusion seems lacking in substance. Once expressions become part of normative language for some people, the terminology is likely to expand in many other directions. While it is true that initially context plays a role, over the years the expressions permeate other sectors of society as well. One can see this clearly in the hate slogans used in the Dutch soccer world. There the slogan “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas” was initially used against a group of fanatic non-Jewish supporters of the Amsterdam soccer club Ajax, who called themselves “Jews.” Some even came to games with Israeli flags. Later this hate term permeated society at large and could be heard from Muslims at anti-Israel demonstrations. This well shows how hate expressions start in one environment and move to another.
A second observation of the report was that a term such as “cancer Jew,” even if directed at no one, remains anti-Semitic. Muslim students do not experience it as such. They consider it normal to use such language. They have no clue as to how it affects Jews.
The report also asks to what extent it is “desirable,” independently of context and meaning, that such expressions belong to the terminology used by students. (The use of the word desirable is rather strange in this context but reflects a Dutch state of mind.) Teachers and school directors say they have problems with the use of such language. How to deal with this issue becomes, then, a major question. The report comes to the conclusion that however important, there are, for the moment at least, no means to deal with it. One can add that since then, these means have still not been found.
The report also notes that according to most students, the situation in the Middle East is linked to the situation in the Netherlands. As soon as violence mounts in the former, the negative attitude toward Jewish students intensifies. The reverse is also true; quiet in the Middle East means quiet in the Netherlands. The report further states that while attitudes toward Jews improved after the project, this does not warrant long-term conclusions.
The report also acknowledges that as long as the Middle East conflict lasts, terms such as “cancer Jew” will be heard frequently, with or without anti-Semitic intentions. The authors most probably misjudged the situation here as well. Even if the Middle East conflict were to be resolved, this terminology would not go away. Post-Holocaust Europe has taught us that anti-Semitism can continue even in the absence of Jews.
Another finding of the interviews was that students have difficulty accepting yearly commemorations of Jews who were murdered in the Second World War, while Muslims are “daily” being killed in the Middle East. The report notes that the commemoration of the dead is also being called “commemoration of the Jews.”
If for one reason or another it was decided that dead Muslims in the Middle East and elsewhere were to be commemorated in the Netherlands, it would have to be clarified that the great majority of the perpetrators of those killings are other Muslims.
The Expansion of the Pilot Project
Oncethe pilot project was deemed successful, it was extended into the 2004-2005 school year with other Muslim peer educators in addition to Moroccan and Jewish ones. During that year, sixty-three classes participated.
At the beginning of this expanded project, well-known Jews and Muslims led some of the lessons. Mayor Job Cohen, who is Jewish, and Deputy Mayor and Alderman Ahmed Aboutaleb, born in Morocco, participated together. In Amsterdam West, the expanded project was launched by the Jewish TV presenter Frits Barend and the Muslim disc jockey Najib Amhali. In Amsterdam East, the Jewish soccer player Daniel de Ridder and the Muslim disc jockey Murad visited a class together. In the course of a few weeks, fifty-seven classes in trade schools from all parts of Amsterdam were given these lessons. The basic idea was that young peer educators are closer to the mindset of students than to that of the teachers.
The project was concluded in 2008 with another report, “The Second World War in Perspective: Results of the National Pilot 2008-2009” (“Tweede Wereldoorlog in Perspectief, Resultaten landelijke pilot 2008/2009”). The material is now available for schools everywhere in the Netherlands. This report still proposes the linking of the Middle East with the Holocaust, which, as noted, is heavily contested by the Jewish community.
The report also asks, in order to explain:
Why are the Second World War and the Middle East conflict discussed together in a book? Teaching about the Second World War alone does not jibe with the reality perceived by a percentage of Muslim youngsters. That their ideas are sometimes shocking does not mean that one should avoid listening to them. By discussing the Middle East conflict, one interacts with their worldview instead of rejecting it. By giving them more knowledge of the region’s history and current events, one allows them an opportunity to moderate their viewpoints.
As pointed out earlier, this approach is highly questionable if not outright misleading. The program consists of six lessons. The first three discuss the Second World War and the persecution of the Jews in the Netherlands and the rest of the world; the second three present the history of the Middle East and the conflicts there in general, as well as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict specifically.
Until the 2007-2008 school year, the program “Second World War in Perspective” was subsidized by the Amsterdam municipality. Since then, schools can purchase it themselves. In light of the program’s success in Amsterdam, a national version was launched for the first time. The report also stated that there is international interest in the program.
In 2005, media reported that the Amsterdam municipality was investigating hatred of Jews at the Het Mozaïek elementary school. Several students had pictures in their backpacks of Mohammed Bouyeri, the Islamist murderer of the Dutch media-maker Theo van Gogh. After a visit to the Anne Frank House, some of the eighth-grade students said what had happened to Anne was “good,” or “they should have killed more Jews.”
In the same year AOb, the General Teachers Organization (Algemene Onderwijsbond), together with the Amsterdam TV station AT5, undertook a study of radicalization in schools. Two hundred and thirty-nine teachers answered the questionnaire. Forty-seven percent of them confirmed that they had experienced radicalization and two-thirds of them were worried about the incidents. One-third of those who answered said they often or sometimes experienced anti-Semitic remarks. The same percentage found that students had anti-Western views. More than a third of the teachers complained that they received too little support from the school board in this matter. A quarter said that they were not sufficiently equipped to react properly to the incidents.
The problems in the Netherlands persist until today. In 2010, the weekly Elsevier and the research bureau ResearchNed carried out a survey of 339 high school history teachers. They were asked whether they had experiences in which they could not or could hardly discuss the Holocaust because it upset their Muslim students. One out of five teachers in the four major cities confirmed this. The percentage at trade schools was higher.
A number of projects for students relating to the Holocaust or other issues have been implemented at schools. One of these is by the National Support Guest Speakers on the Second World War – Today (Landelijk Steunpunt Gastsprekers WOII-Heden). This organization promotes visits to schools by eyewitnesses of the war. It acts as an intermediary between educational institutions and the speakers. The organization is supported financially by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport (VWS). Many organizations of victims of persecution and participants in the resistance are associated with it. Support is also provided by the various War and Resistance museums as well as commemoration centers.
The speakers include survivors of concentration and extermination camps, members of resistance movements, people who were in hiding, civil victims, children of German military, and forced laborers. The idea behind this project is that a witness will give a human dimension to the education and also add a picture of the past in a unique way. Moreover, these people can speak on the basis of their personal experiences and how they affected their lives thereafter. The actuality of prejudice and discrimination is thus enhanced by giving it a historical background.
Another project was initiated by JMW, the Jewish Foundation for Social Work (Joods Maatschappelijk Werk). It involved an exchange of letters between elderly Jews who participated in the organization’s activities and a high school, the Linnaeus College in Haarlem. The intention was that youngsters of about fourteen, whose only knowledge of the Second World War came from history books, would correspond with people who had lived through the period themselves. Subsequently JMW published the exchange of letters.
According to the organizers, the project achieved its goal of bringing young and old people from various cultures and walks of life into contact with each other. The project was the brainchild of Gideon Simon, a social studies teacher at Linnaeus College. He said that a defined project with a clear beginning and end has a much greater chance of succeeding than an open-ended dialogue between “professional Jews” and “professional Muslims.”
Over the years, various schools have taken the initiative to have some of their students visit Auschwitz. These include Huygens College and Montessoricollege Oost in Amsterdam. Another is the Greijdanus School in Zwolle. These visits are often carried out in the framework of educational projects.
The Yad Vashem Program
At the end of 2007, an educational program, initiated by CIDI, began at Yad Vashem in Jerusalem. Twenty-four Dutch teachers came to Yad Vashem for ten days. They received training on how to teach the topic of the persecution of Jews during the Second World War.
Mustafa Daher, a Moroccan teacher of mathematics and physics in Amsterdam, gave his impressions of the program to a Dutch daily. He said he himself had been changed by the visit, and thought 200-250 Amsterdam youngsters should go to Yad Vashem annually, which would create a snowball effect in the schools. He pointed out that the Palestinian youngsters he met in Israel received more information on current events than Muslim youngsters in Amsterdam. The former watch CNN as well as Israeli and Arab channels; the latter only watch Al Jazeera, which influences their behavior.
Another participant was Judith Whitlau, who is an educational assistant at the Amsterdam Jewish Memorial of the former Dutch Theater (Hollandsche Schouwburg). She said the program had given her many practical tips on how to teach the subject. She gave as one example that when teachers speak about the Holocaust, they should not stress the gas chambers and the number of murdered Jews. “In Israel, we were told that we have to give the victims a face. We should show how they did their best to survive.”
A third participant was Sharon Oostenbrink, a twenty-six-year-old history student at Amsterdam University, who agreed with Whitlau’s perspective. Oostenbrink has taught at trade schools with many students who are descendants of non-Western immigrants. She said that the Holocaust and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be separated when teaching. Often having been attacked on that issue, she remarked: “I have spoken in Jerusalem with Palestinian and other Arab cab drivers, but also with the wife of a rabbi. I have seen how peacefully they live together and that there is a strong sense of commonality. If students say that Muslims and Jews cannot live together, I refer to those conversations.”
Additional trips have since been organized by CIDI and the Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, which is part of the National Institute for War Documentation (NIOD). Each of these trips has about twenty-five participants. Of these, it is expected that, once they return to the Netherlands, they will devote efforts to this program for a long period. They should also be willing to become part of a network of teachers for the War and Resistance museums in the Netherlands.
Beginning with the initial trips to Yad Vashem in 2007, participants created a network for education on the Second World War and the Shoah. The purpose was to utilize the trip by relaying experiences. Through a website they can exchange these experiences, teaching material, and best teaching practices.
Adoption of Monuments
A number of Dutch schools have adopted war monuments, among which are Jewish ones. Such initiatives are, for instance, promoted by the National Committee of 4 and 5 May (Stichting Nationaal Comite 4 en 5 mei).
Some examples illustrate how such adoptions work. Eighth-grade students of the Woldstroom school in Meppel have adopted the Jewish monument there. They see to it that is cleaned and remove fallen leaves and dirt.
The Prinsenhof school in Apeldoorn adopted the monument for the victims who were in the Jewish psychiatric institution Het Apeldoornsche Bosch. At the annual commemoration – usually around 22 January – students read poems. Several years ago the public elementary school Driemaster in Assen adopted the monument for the town’s murdered Jews. On 4 October 2011 a memorial ceremony took place in which the seventh- and eighth-grade students participated. The Jews of Assen were deported on 2 October 1942.
In April 2011, an adoption ceremony for the Jewish monument in Wageningen was held. On that occasion the maintenance for the monument was transferred from an eighth-grade class to a seventh-grade one. A school has already taken symbolic care of the monument for a number of years. In September 2011, the annual memorial ceremony of the local Meander schools at the Jewish monument in Gorinchem took place. Children of the eighth grade placed flowers at the memorial and some students read their own poems.
Yet another issue to be investigated is Jew-hatred in Muslim schools. Evidence so far is essentially anecdotal. In 2001, a violent and possibly anti-Semitic video was shown at the Bilal Muslim elementary school in Amersfoort. After the end of Ramadan, the school collected money for Palestinian orphans. The teacher of Arabic showed a Dutch-language video that includes the purported mistreatment and killing of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers. After criticism by other teachers, the video was turned over to the Education Inspectorate. One of its staff members called the images “horrible” and “odious.”
Fenny Brinkman is a Dutch teacher who taught for some time in an Amsterdam Muslim school. In 2005, she published her experiences in a book titled Haram (Unclean). She writes that a colleague of hers taught a lesson about the Holocaust. The next day several Muslim fathers came to complain. The head of the school then decided that in the future, the focus would only be on the persecution of Gypsies, as Jews were bad people.
Liesbeth van der Horst, director of the Resistance Museum in Amsterdam, noted experiences that she and her colleagues had with visits to the museum by Moroccan children. “Afterward, the children think something like: ‘The Jews were a group that stood apart in Dutch society and were deported. We are today a separate group so that could happen to us as well.’ This necessitates explaining that the persecution of the Jews was initiated by the Germans and not by the Dutch.”
In addition, some publications for Muslim children contain anti-Semitic remarks. In 2004, CIDI reported that the publisher Noer had produced a guide for Islamic education. It asserted that Jews destroy humanity by their “cunning and evil.” The book was criticized by Dutch parliamentarians because it also said Muslim husbands should beat their wives in a way that leaves no marks.
Henri Markens, who is the director-general of the Jewish school system (JBO), relates:
Students who transferred to [the Jewish high school] Maimonides from other schools would tell us about the anti-Semitism they had experienced. Every year we had a few children who transferred to us. This was usually because students in their previous school had made anti-Semitic remarks and the school had not done enough – or anything – about it. Other parents and children apparently considered the anti-Semitism normal.
Markens added: “Often the students themselves informed CIDI that they had encountered anti-Semitic incidents. This organization also asked me from time to time whether I had heard stories from our students that were of interest to them.” He noted further:
In 2003 we had visits at our school by Rob Oudkerk, then alderman of education from the Labor Party, and Lodewijk Asscher, who is now deputy mayor of Amsterdam representing the same party. At that time he was the party’s faction chairman.
We told them how our students experience increasing anti-Semitism in Amsterdam. This trend still continues. In 2005, near the metro station in Amstelveen where many middle-class Jews live, one of our students was beaten up by three or four non-Western immigrants. He was wearing a Star of David. An incident of this kind at that place was unusual. It is much more common that such things happen in Amsterdam proper. The closer one comes to the center of the city, the more dangerous the situation becomes.
The phenomenon is more severe than the beating itself. I consider mental abuse to be more serious than physical harm. The consequences of the beating can be healed in an hour or at most a few months. The emotional abuse is frightening and one starts to behave accordingly. In the past a number of students wore kippot when traveling from school to the Amsterdam central station. Today this is no longer possible.
For a number of years already we have been telling our students to “put a cap over your kippa.” In principle one shouldn’t have to do this, but the circumstances in Amsterdam leave you no choice. One must draw logical conclusions from one’s experience. In recent years perceptions in the Netherlands have changed and some people now regard the kippa as a provocation. If one holds such views, a woman wearing a burka is far more provoking. She doesn’t allow any social contact. If I wear a kippa you can look me in the eye and talk to me. This is a major difference.
Security Measures for Jewish Schools
Security measures in Jewish institutions including schools have two major elements. One is investment in equipment and protective material such as cameras, bulletproof glass, security fences, and so on. The other is security for activities, such as the employment of security personnel. Total costs for the organized Jewish community in the Netherlands are estimated at around 800,000 euros per year. Ron van der Wieken, chairman of the Liberal Jewish Community in Amsterdam, stated: “We are only speaking about security toward amateurs. Against professional terrorists, we are not prepared.”
Preventive security has a much greater impact on the Jewish community than on others. One aspect is that it limits freedom of movement. Another is that the Jewish community is sometimes accused of hiding behind high walls, which is indeed the case with Jewish schools. The Jewish weekly NIW pointed out that outsiders often do not realize that the high walls create far greater limitations for those on the inside.
One Jewish parent, Karen de Jager-Waterman, said: “Security costs us much more than money. What does it do to us and our children that we have to consider it normal to pass security personnel if one enters the school, the synagogue, or another Jewish institution…. How far do we have to go with our security?… On the other hand I realize that if anything ever happens, you will pull your hair out of your head if you haven’t taken appropriate measures.”
Markens relates that when he was chairman of the CJO in 2000, he had regular contacts with the Amsterdam municipality about the financing of the high personnel costs of the ongoing security for Jewish schools.
They said that this was not within their competence and referred me to the Justice Ministry. There they sent me on to the Interior Ministry. They, in turn, passed us on to the Education Ministry, which then sent me back to the Amsterdam municipality. The net result was thus zero.
When we built the new Maimonides High School, however, the Amsterdam municipality went beyond the regular subsidy for the building of schools, which in our case came to several million euros. In addition, they gave us 700,000 euros for the physical-security aspects of the building. In 2008, when – due to the increasing costs of construction – there were major financing problems regarding the completion of the new school buildings, the Amsterdam municipality helped us with a subsidy of one million euros. This enabled us to complete the school but was not related to the security issue.
In 2010, it was announced that the neighborhood council of Amsterdam South was willing to make some funds available for the security of Jewish institutions. The Dutch government still refuses to pay for the security of Jewish institutions because the national security coordinator considers that these are not seriously threatened.
In September 2011, CIDI published a list of incidents involving Jewish buildings and institutions over the period 2000-2010. They included twenty-nine serious violations. These do not include onetime graffiti on synagogues or damages to monuments.
Attacks on Jewish School Groups outside Schools
In April 2002, a complaint was made to CIDI that during an outing of the Jewish elementary school Rosh Pina of Amsterdam, stones were thrown at the students and teachers. This was a prolonged incident during which a girl and two boys shouted “Hamas, Hamas, Jews to the gas.” The perpetrators were mainly autochthonous Dutch.
A month later, another complaint to CIDI related that during a picnic, also part of a school outing of Rosh Pina, children had been shot at with an airgun from a nearby house. The police were called and they confiscated two airguns. As there was no damage, the police made no official report. Later that day, the children swam in a lake. In the locker room, “Juden raus!” was shouted at them. The locker room itself is full of anti-Semitic and racist graffiti.
Media articles in 2010 recount how during a four-day walk in the southern part of Amsterdam, participants from Rosh Pina were harassed and cursed at. This is predominantly a phenomenon of the last five years.
During a parliamentary debate in summer 2010, MP Fred Teeven of the Liberal Party said:
On 4 May I visited the Jewish elementary school Rosh Pina and the Jewish high school Maimonides in Amsterdam…. It is shocking to hear the stories of the children at both schools. Not only had they been harassed during the four-day evening walk, but worse, even threatened, and with physical violence…. There were threats such as “We know where to find you, we know where you live and we will come to see you.”
Substantial problems of anti-Semitism in Dutch schools have already persisted for at least ten years and are unlikely to disappear in the foreseeable future. It is crucial that incidents be regularly reported to the Dutch authorities and brought to the public’s attention.
The arrival of a large nonselective Muslim immigration has probably been the most negative event for Dutch Jewry since the Second World War. A significant number of immigrants and their descendants hold far greater prejudices against Jews than was common in the Netherlands. Among them one also finds extreme manifestations of physical and verbal abuse. The percentage of youngsters with negative attitudes toward Jews is far higher among Muslim descendants of immigrants than among autochthonous Dutch. A particularly disturbing issue is that these problems emerge far more in the second generation than in the first. However, many anti-Semitic incidents in schools are also perpetrated by autochthonous Dutch.
Programs developed to counter anti-Semitism in schools have changed the opinions of a number of Muslim students. Still, important percentages of them are not influenced at all. The number of Moroccan and Turkish students who hold discriminatory attitudes toward Jews is large. As Turks and Moroccans represent two-thirds of all Muslims in the Netherlands, the absolute numbers of anti-Semitic Muslim students in Dutch society are of major dimensions.
As for claims that the actual incidents of physical or verbal abuse against Jews are not numerous, they offer a very partial picture. If one adds up all the data, the total figure may perhaps represent a small percentage of all young Muslims. It is not small, however, compared to the number of Dutch Jewish students. Moreover, in periods of tension the potential for anti-Semitic incidents further increases as so many Muslim youngsters hold prejudices against Jews.
This essay is part of a research project on the Netherlands, the Jews, and Israel sponsored by the Stichting Collectieve Marorgelden Israel (SCMI).
Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeldis chairman of the Board of Fellows of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He is an international business strategist who has been a consultant to governments, international agencies, and boards of some of the world’s largest corporations. Among the twenty books he has published are Behind the Humanitarian Mask: The Nordic Countries, Israel and the Jews (JCPA and Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies, 2008), The Abuse of Holocaust Memory: Distortions and Responses (JCPA and ADL, 2009), and Judging the Netherlands: The Renewed Holocaust Restitution Process, 1997-2000 (JCPA, 2011).
 Emmanuel Brenner, ed., Les Territoires, perdus de la République (Paris: Arthème Fayard, 2002). [French]
 “Kartlegging Av Kunnskaper Og Holdninger, På Området Rasisme Og Antisemittisme,” Perduco, 2011. [Norwegian]
 Centraal Joods Overleg, brief aan de leden van de Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal, 24 June 2010. [Dutch]
 Spoeddebat over het snel groeiend antisemitisme in Nederland, Tweede Kamer, 24 June 2010. [Dutch]
 Overleg van vaste commissie van Tweede Kamer voor Binnenlandse zaken over antisemitisme, 2 February 2011. [Dutch]
 Kustaw Bessems, “Mag het weer gewoon over de oorlog gaan?,” De Pers, 19 januari 2011. [Dutch]
 CJO aan Tweede Kamer, “Pak antisemitisme aan,” 27 January 2011. [Dutch],
 Report of meeting of the permanent Parliamentary Commission on internal affairs, 2 February 2011. [Dutch]
 “Kamervragen CIDI-rapport,” NIW, 6 August 2004. [Dutch]
 Toespraak van minister Eberhard van der Laan, tijdens de nieuwjaarsreceptie van Forum, Instituut voor multiculturele Ontwikkeling, op 22 januari 2009 in Theater aan het Spui in Den Haag. [Dutch]
 2356. Vragen van Tofik Dibi aan de ministers voor Wonen, Wijken en Integratie en van Justitie over de toename van antisemitische incidenten. (Ingezonden 4 maart 2009.) Tweede Kamer, vergaderjaar 2008-2009, Aanhangsel, 4945. [Dutch]
 Report of meeting of permanent Parliamentary Commission on internal affairs, 2 February 2011. [Dutch]
 “Stichting in actie: op school groei antisemitisme,” Het Parool, 23 November 2002. [Dutch]
 Hadassa Hirschfeld, “Antisemitische Incidenten in Nederland. Overzicht over het jaar 2003 en de periode 1 januari – 5 mei 2004,” CIDI, 7. [Dutch].
 Hadassa Hirschfeld, “Overzicht Antisemitische Incidenten Nederland 2001 en voorlopig overzicht 2002,” CIDI. [Dutch]
 Hadassa Hirschfeld, “Antisemitische Incidenten in Nederland. Overzicht over het jaar 2003 en de periode 1 januari – 5 mei 2004,” CIDI, 21. [Dutch].
 Ibid., 22.
 Hadassa Hirschfeld en Agnes van der Sluijs, “Antisemitische Incidenten in Nederland. Overzicht over het jaar 2004 en de periode 1 januari – 5 mei 2005,” CIDI, 18. [Dutch]
 Ibid., 19.
 Hadassa Hirschfeld, “Antisemitische Incidenten in Nederland. Overzicht over het jaar 2005 en de periode 1 januari – 5 mei 2006,” CIDI, 15. [Dutch]
 Ibid., 14.
 Meir Villegas Henriquez, “Antisemitische Incidenten in Nederland. Overzicht over het jaar 2006 en de periode 1 januari – 5 mei 2007,” CIDI, 14. [Dutch]
 Elise Friedmann, “Monitor antisemitische incidenten in Nederland: 2008. Met een verslag van de Gazaperiode: 27-12-2008 – 23-1-2009,” CIDI, 18. [Dutch]
 Ibid., 19.
 Margalith Kleijwegt en Max van Weezel, Het land van haat en nijd (Amsterdam: Balans, 2006), 108. [Dutch]
 Interview with Johannes Houwink ten Cate, “Nederlandse Joden in een maatschappij zonder waarden,” in Manfred Gerstenfeld, Het Verval: Joden in een Stuurloos Nederland (Amsterdam: Van Praag, 2010), 260-261. [Dutch]
 Kustaw Bessems, “Tweede Wereldoorlog/Marokkanen doceren WOII,” Trouw, 24 April 2004. [Dutch]
 Marcel van Engelen en Mijntje Klipp, “Scholen verzwijgen de incidenten,” Het Parool, 8 November 2003. [Dutch]
 Marcel van Engelen, “Allah zal ze krijgen,” Het Parool, 4 October 2003. [Dutch]
 Ted de Hoog, “Kom maar op, kinderen,” NIW, 28 November 2003. [Dutch]
 Gemeente Amsterdam, Eindrapport project Tweede Wereldoorlog in Perspectief, 23 september 2004, 4. [Dutch]
 Tweede Wereldoorlog in Perspectief. [Dutch]
 Ibid., 5.
 Ibid., 35.
 Ibid., 31.
 Ibid., 35.
 Ibid., 31, 35.
 Ibid., 7.
 Ibid., 30.
 Ibid., 16.
 Ewoud Butter en Seda Önce, Allochtone jongeren Mediagebruik & Mediawijsheid. Verkennende notitie. ACB Kenniscentrum, 2010, 6. [Dutch]
 Islamitische en Joodse jongeren geven les over WO-II, Amsterdam.nl, 27 April 2005. [Dutch]
 Amsterdam.nl, April/May 2006, 11. [Dutch]
 Resultaten landelijke pilot 2008/2009 Tweede Wereldoorlog in perspectief. De tweede wereldoorlog en het Midden Oosten, Lespakket [V]MBO. Diversion.nl, 2009. [Dutch]
 Resultaten landelijke pilot 2008/2009 Tweede Wereldoorlog in perspectief, 4. [Dutch]
 Ibid., 5.
Hakehillot Nieuws, 17 March 2005. [Dutch]
 “Docenten kampen met radicale klas,” Het Parool, 1 July 2005. [Dutch]
 Robert Stiphout, “Moslimleerlingen hebben moeite met Holocaustles,” Elsevier, 27 April 2010. [Dutch]
(Niet) van gisteren. Briefwisseling tussen leerlingen van het Linnaeus College in Haarlem en Joodse ouderen (Amsterdam: Joods Maatschappelijk Werk, 2005). (Niet) van gisteren. Briefwisseling tussen leerlingen van het Ewald Centrum voor MAVO-VMBO en Joodse ouderen (Amsterdam: Joods Maatschappelijk Werk, 2006). [Dutch]
(Niet) van gisteren, 2006, voorwoord I.
 Gideon Simon, personal communication.
 “De Baarsjes een ‘respectmonument,'” Het Parool, 13 april 2005. [Dutch]
 Hanneloes Pen, “Yad Vashem opent docenten de ogen,” Nederlands Dagblad, 10 January 2008. [Dutch]
 Elise, “Studiereizen naar Yad Vashem,” 29 October 2009, https://www.jcpa.org/David/A%20BOOKS/DUTCH%20BOOKS/WILTING%20TULIPS%20ACTUAL/New%20text%20of%20book/English%20Text/www.platformeducatiewo2.nl/seminars/studiereizen-yad-vashem/ [Dutch].
 “Leerlingen Woldstroom maken Joods monument schoon,” Krant voor Meppel, 19 July 2011. [Dutch]
 “Herdenking Joods Monument,” MoiAssen, 2 October 2011. [Dutch],
 “Herdenking bij Joods monument,” De Stad Gorinchem.nl, 6 September 2011. [Dutch],
 “Vertoning anti-Israelfilm op islamitische basisschool,” Volkskrant, 5 February. [Dutch]
 Fenny Brinkman, Haram (Amsterdam: Balans, 2005), 45, 46. [Dutch]
 Liesbeth van der Horst, personal communication.
 Hadassa Hirschfeld, “Antisemitische Incidenten in Nederland. Overzicht over het jaar 2003 en de periode 1 januari – 5 mei 2004,” CIDI, 57. [Dutch].
 Manfred Gerstenfeld, interview with Henri Markens, “Insights into the Situation of the Jews in the Netherlands,” Changing Jewish Communities, 50, November 2009.
 Esther Voet en Kemal Rijken, “Over beveiliging: de noodzaak en de kosten,” NIW, 5 August 2011. [Dutch]
 Henri Markens, personal communication.
 Esther Voet, “Daarom beveiliging,” NIW, 2 September 2011. [Dutch]
 Hadassa Hirschfeld, “Antisemitische Incidenten in Nederland. Overzicht over het jaar 2002 en de periode 1 januari – 5 mei 2003,” CIDI, 8. [Dutch]
 “Chaotische taferelen bij avondvierdaagse,” Het Parool, 8 June 2010. [Dutch]
 Spoeddebat over het snel groeiend antisemitisme in Nederland, Tweede Kamer, 24 June 2010. [Dutch]