“What this resolution really says is: ‘just flatten Israel’.” Michel Waterman, columnist for the Dutch Jewish weekly New Israelite Weekly (NIW), wrote these words explaining why he resigned his membership of the Dutch Labour Party after 49 years. “I can no longer be a member of this party, not even for a minute,” he added.
The resolution he called “abhorrent” demanded an arms embargo against Israel, including components used in Iron Dome, the missile defence shield credited with saving hundreds, if not thousands, of civilian lives—particularly since Iran began attacking Israeli cities after IDF strikes on its nuclear weapons programme.
Kati Piri, the Labour Party (PvdA) spokesperson in the Lower House who introduced the resolution, claimed that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu uses Iron Dome “as an offensive weapon”, and that dismantling it could “de-escalate” the conflict with Iran and its proxies, Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis. The fact that the PvdA – once staunchly pro-Jewish and pro-Israel – called on the government to leave Israeli civilians defenceless under Iranian rocket fire shocked not only Dutch Jews but much of the political spectrum, from centre-left to far-right.
Even so, PvdA leader Frans Timmermans doubled down, arguing it was acceptable to leave civilians defenceless since “in a democracy they are responsible” for their government’s actions. He reiterated this stance at the Labour conference, saying “Israel feels invulnerable” and that boycotting Iron Dome might pressure it to stop committing “war crimes”.
His words provoked furious responses. Former foreign minister Uri Rosenthal told the JC he considered Timmermans’ reasoning “abject” and questioned how he could be part of any future coalition. The caretaker Dutch government responded cautiously, with prime minister Dick Schoof calling the resolution “uneasy”. Foreign minister Caspar Veldkamp declined the JC’s request for comment on Timmermans’ remarks.
In contrast, VVD leader Dilan Yesilgöz didn’t hold back. She told the JC that a full arms embargo against Israel would “deliberately put millions of people in danger. Does Timmermans also believe the Gazans are responsible for Hamas? Or does this only apply to Jews?” She also described his arguments as “insane”, “rabid”, and “abject”.
The Labour Party is merging with the far-left Greens and has adopted an increasingly strident anti-Israel stance since October 7, 2023. Timmermans, a former Executive Vice-President of the European Commission, has shifted sharply to the left to solidify his leadership of the new joint party.
Former party leader Job Cohen, who is Jewish, called Piri’s motion “unwise”, joining a chorus of former party grandees who used stronger terms to denounce the party’s direction under Timmermans. Former Amsterdam alderman Rob Oudkerk described it as an “immoral disgrace” and “political suicide”. Ronald Plasterk, former interior minister and now a columnist for Dutch daily De Telegraaf, said: “This is not the Labour Party I know. When I became a member of the PvdA, antisemitism was a right-wing phenomenon. This seems to have been turned on its head.”
Jacques Monasch, a former PvdA MP with a Jewish background, told the JC: “PvdA/GreenLeft has betrayed the Israeli population. Thirty-five Dutch MPs want to give a green light to the fascist theocracy of the ayatollahs to wipe the Jewish state off the map.” Those 35 votes were cast in favour of Piri’s resolution in the 150-seat Lower House. In the end, it was defeated, with 99 votes against.
The 35 votes in favour were fewer than usual for anti-Israel resolutions. The far-left Socialist Party, the Animal Party, and the Muslim Denk party supported the motion. But for the centre-left liberals of D66 and Volt – typically very critical of Israel – the idea of leaving civilians unprotected was a bridge too far.
Geert Wilders, the Freedom Party leader who brought down the government on June 5, was scathing: “PvdA is Jew-hatred,” he wrote on X. Wilders also criticised Yesilgöz for refusing to rule out a coalition with the left. “Despite their hatred and antisemitism, Yesilgöz refuses to exclude Timmermans – even though he doesn’t want Israel to defend itself,” he posted.
Wilders also criticised Yesilgöz for refusing to rule out a coalition with PvdA-GreenLeft. “Despite [the left's] hatred and antisemitism, Yesilgöz refuses to exclude Timmermans – even though he doesn’t want Israel to defend itself,” he posted.
Opinion polls show a potential three-way race between Wilders, Timmermans and Yesilgöz in October. Neither party is expected to win an outright majority. The VVD will likely be key in forming the next coalition. Yesilgöz has already ruled out governing with Wilders. However, she has so far stopped short of excluding Timmermans. In recent days, more VVD members have called on her to do so unless he changes his position. She has refused, saying only that she hopes he and his party will reconsider.
She may be alone in that hope. Most observers expect Timmermans’ party to move further left – and further from Israel – once the merger is formalised. At the party conference, far-left activists dominated the discussion. Anti-Zionist GreenLeft members want the party to denounce Zionism and even endorse Hamas’s “right to armed resistance”.
Timmermans has so far made no effort to rein in these hardliners, seemingly content to watch Jewish and centrist members like Waterman leave. In recent days, other high-profile PvdA figures have also resigned, including Gerdi Verbeet, former speaker of the Dutch parliament.
Timmermans seems to bet that there are far more anti-Israel votes to gain than centrist votes to lose. Let’s hope the Dutch prove him wrong.
Bart Schut is a Dutch journalist
