On September 8, GA!-Think Tank presented its first Expert Talk of the new academic year. Dr. Peter Malcontent presented a brief history of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with special attention to the Dutch perspective and role. Below is a report of the key ideas and points of discussion that Dr. Malcontent presented.

The following report reflects an academic discussion and a series of ideas presented at GA’s first Expert Talk. GA is a platform for academics, students, and young professionals to share their ideas regarding international relations and history. We do not take a position but seek to further platform intellectual debate and discussion. 

The beginning of the relationship. 

The Netherlands is today seen as one of the most friendly European countries regarding Israel. However, as Dr. Malcontent points out, the Netherlands’ historical relationship with Israel is far more complex. 

The Dutch relationship to Israel upon its founding was complex. This was due mainly due to the Dutch policy in Indonesia, the largest muslim nation in the world. Due to the Netherlands’ role as a colonial power in what is now Indonesia, it could not be openly pro-Israel initially, and waited a significant period of time before recognising Israel. 

At this same point in time, the United Nations had presented a two state peace plan. The Israelis accepted this, viewing it as their best option at that moment. 

However for the Palestinians, the occupation was a relatively new phenomenon. Until the 1910s, Palestine was an autonomous province in the Ottoman Empire. Only for about three decades was there extensive British and Zionist presence. For them, the plan was unacceptable and this resulted in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war, resulting in Israeli victory. The end result of this was the Nakba, resulting in the expulsion and fleeing of Palestinian Arabs into the West Bank and Gaza which were occupied by Jordan and Egypt respectively. 

The biggest result of this was that the Palestinian issue was brushed aside for almost two decades. It was after this war that the Netherlands would finally recognise Israel. Around the same time it could no longer maintain control of Indonesia.

Cold War relationship

While initially complicated, the Dutch relationship with Israel became one of Israel’s strongest in Europe in the 1950s and 1960s. This was mainly due to two reasons.

The first was Cold War realpolitik, as Israel aligned itself with the west, particularly the United States, arguably the Netherlands’ closest ally. 

The second was due to the relationship of the Dutch Labour Party (PvdA) and the Labour Party of Israel (Mapai). Both parties espoused a leftist, social democratic ideology. Unlike today, Israel’s early founders were more to the political left, and the relationship of the Labour parties in Israel and the Netherlands was a key factor in this. 

The PvdA played a major role in Dutch politics in the late 1940s and the 1950s. Willem Drees, leader of PvdA was the Dutch Prime Minister. Meanwhile in Israel, Mapai and its leaders remained in power until the late 1970s. 

This resulted in a very close relationship with the Netherlands being Israel’s closest ally in Europe. When the Soviet Union closed its embassy to Israel in Moscow, the Netherlands would take the role of helping Soviet Jews emigrate to Israel. 

Six-Day War and new dynamics

In 1967, massive changes took place. Israel defeated the surrounding Arab states and took control of the West Bank and Gaza. This had several effects, and changed the nature of the relationship.

Unlike in the 1940s, religious elements in Israeli society had become more influential, particularly with many wanting control of the West Bank as it encompassed the biblical provinces of Judea and Samaria. 

This posed a fundamental problem as if it were to integrate the provinces, it would have to offer the Arabs living there, Israeli citizenship. This was not seen as an option by the Israeli government at the time. This is why until recently these regions remained under control but were never annexed.

So Israel chose not to annex the regions. However it now was in charge of a large Palestinian population. Around this time, Palestinian militancy began to rise as the other Arab states were no longer seen as capable of defending the interest of Palestinians. 

Internationally, the United Nations Security Council passed Resolution 242 which affirmed Israel must withdraw from the captured territories. This resolution remains the basis for future negotiations. 

For the Netherlands around this time, the relationship began to change as well. Different sections of Dutch society supported Israel for different reasons. As mentioned before the PvdA already had a deep existing relationship with Mapai due to ideological connections. Dutch liberals such as those in the VVD favoured Israel due to their Atlanticist orientations. Israel was increasingly a key ally to the U.S. and as that relationship grew, so too did the Dutch-Israeli relationship. Finally, Dutch Calvinists supported Israel due to their religious convictions. 

Yom Kippur War

In 1973, Israel and the surrounding Arab nations went to war again. The result was much less decisive than in 1967, but one of the biggest effects of this war happened off the battlefield. Several of the Arab nations, led by Saudi Arabia during the war, cut off oil exports to the U.S. and several allies that supported Israel. This included among others, the Netherlands.

As a result, other countries in Europe put pressure on the Netherlands to be less pro-Israel. This pressure from the Arab-states ultimately led to the Venice declaration, where the European Economic Community and its members officially came to support a two-state solution. However they lacked a common strategy on how to reach this, and ultimately little came of it due to this. 

Dutch relations with the PLO

By the 1980s, the Netherlands was one of the few countries that did not have relations with the PLO. Dutch diplomats were not allowed to engage with the Palestinians. This largely was due to a consistent majority in parliament opposing the PLO and supporting Israel. 

The foreign ministry realised this was impractical and began engaging secretly with the PLO. 

In the 1990s, this became more relaxed for two reasons. Firstly, the parliament skewed more to the left than it had been in the past. Additionally Israel had begun talks with the PLO during the Oslo peace process. This made it publicly acceptable to discuss with the Palestinians for a short time. 

Dr. Malcontent points out that changes in policy typically start in the foreign ministry, as they receive first-hand unfiltered information. 

Oslo failure and the present day

The Oslo Accords ultimately failed. The PLO became increasingly corrupt, alienating many Palestinians. Additionally many Palestinians resisted the peace process, believing it would not be a fair negotiation or being upset at the settlement presence remaining. 

During the process, irreconcilable differences arose between the Palestinians who wanted the West Bank and Gaza, with the Israelis who were unwilling to let go completely, demanding parts of the West Bank as well. Israel wanted to give Palestinians autonomy but maintain control of certain factors such as control of the West Bank’s borders and maintaining settlements in the West Bank. 

This led to the rise of Hamas, another militant group that rejected the PLO’s softening position in the 1980s and 1990s. 

When the Oslo Peace process failed, Israel and the U.S blamed the PLO. Additionally, Hamas was able to point to the failure and say that it was not worth negotiating with Israel, furthering their rise. 

Dutch public opinion and anti-semitism

After Oslo failed, there was a status quo. Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip but it maintained control of Gaza’s external borders. Israeli policy shifted to a more hawkish approach, with many believing diplomacy had failed. 

The view of the Netherlands and other European states remained the same. They remained committed to funding the PLO and believing that Israel was committed to seeking peace.

When October 7 occurred, the Netherlands immediately took a strong stance in support of Israel. Then Dutch Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, offered unconditional support. It was only after a year of the war in Gaza that redlines were mentioned and there was more scrutiny. 

As the war has continued, public opinion has shifted against Israel. However it is worth noting that this has not necessarily indicated an increase in support for the Palestinians among the Dutch population. Instead many people are more concerned with the rules and norms of international law being violated in the war, rather than affinity for either side among Dutch people. 

The topic remains contentious due to the legacy of anti-semitism and the holocaust in the Netherlands. Dr. Malcontent ended his presentation by acknowledging that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become internalised within Dutch society, becoming a reflection of growing polarisation in the Netherlands. He points to the November 2024 Amsterdam riots which were weaponised by many politicians to accomplish their political objectives, using the conflict as a tool.