The Battle for Jewish Sympathy: The House of Orange, the Dutch Jews and Postwar Morality (original) (raw)
2017, in: David J. Wertheim ed., The Jew as Legitimation: Jewish-Gentile Relations Beyond Antisemitism and Philosemitism
In 1965, Queen Juliana of the Netherlands announced the engagement of Princess Beatrix to the German Claus von Amsberg. In the context of a rearticulation of Dutch public morality in terms of the Second World War, and especially the Holocaust, this engagement provoked intense public debate. Each of the groups involved—the Royal House, the government, and the opponents—connected the topic of the engagement to the Shoah and tried to get Dutch Jewry on their side. Internally, this caused fierce debate and even fear of a split in the community. Although the “Jew as legitimation” was an effective argument in public and political debate, Dutch Jews themselves generally objected to such an exploitation of their history, traditions, and existence.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
Crime, law and social change, 2000
Contrary to their historical reputation there were only a few Dutch citizens who rescued Jews during World War II by providing their homes as a shelter. Of all the West European countries occupied by the Germans, the number of Jewish casualties was the highest in The Netherlands. Before the occupation there were approximately 140,000 Jews living in The Netherlands, and of that total at least 109,000 were murdered. When the war was over many war criminals and Nazi collaborators were punished. This did not include, however, Dutch civil servants and many of the police and train conductors who were all part of the Holocaust machine. They were recruited from the large middle-ground of a population of mainly bystanders. In addition, Dutch criminology has been conspicuously silent about the Holocaust. Therefore, I shall discuss the following issues as contributory to the Holocaust: (1) the denunciation process; the attitude of The Netherlands' bureaucracy in general; and, (3) the negative impact of the actions of officials in positions of the highest power such as the Queen (who fled to Britain), members of the Supreme Court and Chiefs of Police.
Encounters with troubles pasts in contemporary Dutch and Greek historiography, 2023
In 1950 the mayor of Amsterdam accepted from the hands of a Jewish committee a “Monument of Jewish Gratitude”, intended to express the appreciation of Dutch Jews for the help of their fellow citizens during the Second World War. In our chapter, we analyse the initiative and realization of the monument, arguing that it was from the outset a specimen of “conflictive heritage”. The monument fitted the prevailing myth of collective Dutch resistance, but met with severe criticism from within the Jewish community. Through studying the prosopography of the committee members and analysing the various positions taken in the dispute, we argue that for some Jews who saw their future in the Netherlands the monument was their “ticket of re-admission into Dutch society”, whereas others – mostly Zionists – objected to the monument as a symbol of traditional Jewish Diaspora attitudes of servility and assimilation, and juxtaposed it with the memorial “Joop Westerweel Forest” in Palestine/Israel – a living monument in the country of Jewish future. We also address the present status of the monument and plead for its continued existence as a stumbling stone documenting postwar attitude towards Jews in Dutch society.
After the Shoah: Continuity and change in the postwar Jewish community of the Netherlands
Jewish History, 2001
The Dutch Jewish community is part of Western European Jewry and as such is part of what Bernard Wasserstein describes as the vanishing Diaspora. The community is one of Europe's smallest and it was also the Western European Jewish community most heavily damaged by the Shoah; it lost 75% of its population. It is surprising that the community still exists. It has gone through many changes, most notably in the 1960s. Progressive Judaism and the Lubavitcher Habad movement have made considerable inroads in the religious community, but the population has become largely secular, and new secular Jewish networks have been established. Dutch Jews have redefined their identity, shifting from “Dutchmen of the Israelite religion” to “Jews” or “people with a Jewish background,” belonging to a social and cultural minority. A small population exchange has taken place between Israel and the Netherlands. The brief baby boom after the Shoah and the newly formed networks outside the religious framework have revitalized the community. But most Jews in the Netherlands are married to non-Jews, and in spite of unique efforts to integrate the Israelis into the community, the future seems uncertain.
‘The Activist Jew’ Responds to Changing Dutch Perceptions of Israel
As criticism of Israeli politics in the Dutch media grew in the 1970s, so did increasing suspicion about the loyalties of the Jews in the Netherlands. Oftentimes, all Jews, regardless of their nationality or political preferences, were seen as supporters of Israeli politics. Criticising Israel therefore easily translated into criticising Jews. As a result, Dutch Jews were held responsible for what happened in Israel and a dangerous slippery slope between legitimate political criticism and antisemitism took shape. This slippery slope was one of the causes of several public debates in the Dutch media. Navigating between legitimate criticism of Israeli politics on the one side and flat-out antisemitism on the other, the discussions about Israel were muddled and tainted by a perceived interchangeability of ‘Israel’ and ‘Jews’. It resulted in Jewish sensitivities regarding critical reports on Israel as well as a framing of Israel within a well-established context of Jewish stereotypes. Unsurprisingly, these differing viewpoints clashed, and especially the postwar generation of young Dutch Jews made their protests public. In this chapter, I will discuss three instances of Dutch Jews publicly protesting reporting on Israel that they considered anti-Israel or antisemitic. Through these case studies, I will attempt to show the rise of Jewish activism as a response to the changes in Dutch public opinion on Israel. Final version published in: Evelien Gans and Remco Ensel ed., The Holocaust, Israel and 'the Jew’: Histories of Antisemitism in Postwar Dutch Society (Amsterdam University Press 2016) pp. 241-258.
The shadow of a hand. Jewish-gentile marriages and Jewish suicides in the Netherlands 1936-1943
According to Hilberg (1961 and 198~: 53), the German rulers issued decrees in the same order in each of the countries they occupied: first, it was defined who was Jewish. then Je~~~ish propert}' would be confiscated, to be followed by the physical herding together of the Jews, and finally their annihilation. Hilberg's thesis, that the extermination of the European Jews during World War II was the culmination of a process with fixed stages, raises several questions. These concern the number of phases (Botz 1988), their delineation (was the ban on intermarriage the first step in the phase of Jewish quarters and camps?), and the extent to which decrees that mark a particular phase achieved their purpose (Blom 1989). Because Hilberg's thesis has to do with measures taken by the authorities, questions about the people to whom these measures apply may easily be misdirected. People will resign themselves to, or resist, measures that have already been decreed; but they will also anticipate decisions the authorities have yet to take, or they will wait and see.
The German persecution of the Jews in the occupied Netherlands and Dutch non-Jewish responses
The Nations of Europe Facing the Holocaust, 2017
This unpublished paper (20 pages, 6,400 words in the text + 45 footnotes) was presented in an abridged version as a lecture at the international conference 'The Nations of Europe Facing the Holocaust', Session V: West European Countries under Occupation (Moderator: Dr. Marcin Urynowicz). This paper includes references to the most recent relevant research literature on this topic. The conference was organized by the Polish Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), Historical Research Office, December 6–8, 2017, in Warsaw. KEYNOTE SPEAKERS: Prof. Andrzej Żbikowski, Prof. Antony Polonsky. Due to (international) political controversy, which ignited shortly after conclusion of the conference, the collected articles will not be published in an edited volume.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.
Related papers
ISBN: 9789085068112. Boom Publishers (Koninklijke Boom Uitgevers), Amsterdam, the Netherlands, 2011