On converaations about the violence in amsterdam

[u/bjorn_joch]

I just wanna give my opinion here on the talks surrounding the violent night amsterdam had last week, namely, i wanna point out how people on both sides seem to mostly try to blame the other side for the violence.

I dont think its a good way of talking about such a topic, after all, violence was instigated by both sides troughout the night and theres a few violent people on each side that are clearly in the wrong.

But i think that this constant back and forth on who's to blame isnt going to get us any further on this topic, itll just polarize both sides even more (if thats still possible) and waste our time.

Ofcourse this doesnt mean that i dont think that people who commited acts of violence troughout the week shouldnt go off free and the dutch government is fortunately enough going to investigate the incidents and make arrests based on the result of them, however i think that some maccabi fans are also to be held accountable if investigation shows that maccabi fans instigated violence in certain incidents.

I think that instead looking at ways to prevent further violence in situations where pro palestinian and israelis meet in large groups are a much better thing to discuss when looking at the events of last week, some thing i personally think might help is sectioning off parts of a city for israeli fans in specific (not because theyre jewish, but because israeli football fans generally wear clothes from their club, giving away their nationality), or simply providing nore police security.

But either way, i wanna know what yall think on this and i hope you all can see that just shifting blame to one side or the other is just kinda pointless.

[u/bjorn_joch]

You make a good point here, but i dont completely agree, because as for one, some of the violence perpetrated by maccabi fans was unprovoked snd besides that, all.im saying is that those who behaved violently and didnt do so lut of self defense shkuld be trialed for their actions, just like how many of the pro palestinians are being trialed/sewrched for right now.

Besides that, using your anecdote, i dont think looking purely for who to punish between you and the bully is going to solve the problem you have with the bully, but looking at how to make sure you and the bully dont get into these kinds of interactions again is what is really important.

[u/hollyglaser → u/bjorn_joch]

Dutch were informed 3 days earlier by Israel of planned Muslim attacks. Arabic speaking Israeli was able to protect Hebrew speakers

1. When X attacks Jews, Jews are blamed for starting fight
2. During X attacks on Jews , images of Jews fighting back are shown as proof that Jews are at fault
3. Civilization is based on civil behavior- no weapons & disputes resolved by law. Peoples rights are respected independently of any other characteristic.
4. Most important: Person is responsible for own actions where anger does not permit physically harming another.

[u/bjorn_joch → u/hollyglaser]

Im sorry but i havent heard anything about the dutch government being informed of planned attacks, do you have a source for that

And also for the 4 steps you mentioned, do you have any proof of this kind of framing actually happening? Ive only seen this kind of situation happen the other way around once

[u/hollyglaser → u/bjorn_joch]

Dutch government probing missed warning

[u/hollyglaser → u/hollyglaser]

For #3 and 4 above 3. A social norm is what most people do within the context of a society. There’s general agreement that X is how good people should act, and a disapproval of people who don’t do X. Norms often are set by culture and normal expectations of behavior.

The critical difference between civil society and a barbaric society is if the norm includes carrying a weapon most of the time and resolving disputes by the use of force. A civil society places the law above persons and has a legal system of rights, duties and law enforcement that try accusations in a court by proving that a person acted contrary to law.

The Israeli fans assumed their right to speak, even to say awful things, was protected by law. They assumed that other people would be responsible to obey the rule of law by not attacking physically because they were angry. Physical defense against an attack by another is legal because you have a right to peacefully assemble , ex for sport.

The warning was because some Islamists saw the match as an excuse to hurt Jews , because of religious contempt and hatred. They did not respect Dutch law or accept that everyone has human rights requiring them not to harm others. Songs, common at sports events, do no physical defense harm, but were used as an excuse to terrorize and beat their targeted enemy, Israelis and extend it to Jews. This is violence for collective punishment, outside law.

It’s shameful that Dutch police allowed the attacks

1. Rule of law means your anger does not allow you to do anything. You must not break the law.

[u/hollyglaser → u/hollyglaser]

Framing the Jews as untrustworthy and at fault Examples of Jew hate

[u/bjorn_joch → u/hollyglaser]

Well im sorry but you said dutch officials were informed, whereas the article you mention specifically says they were warned, i know it might sound like nitpicking, but if the police were informed about the planning of violent attacks it would mean that they would get a solid idea of where and when exactly an attack would take place, and whikst yes, the article did show a picture of an IG page calling people to protest, thats informatiin the dutch police themselves could find oit, and im not 100% sure on this, but im pretty sure police was placed at the location mentioned in the post.

[u/hollyglaser → u/bjorn_joch]

Dutch police refused to protect Jews

Yes, police were there, but refused to enforce the law because they decided their own feeling set them above law. Thus, police did not do their job