Blind Spots and Bias Against Israel

In the Netherlands, something striking has taken hold in public discourse. A country far removed from the realities of the Middle East has developed a loud, confident, and often deeply hostile stance toward Israel. This would be less remarkable if it were grounded in deep knowledge or firsthand experience. But in many cases, it is not. Many of the most outspoken voices have never set foot in Israel, have never engaged with the region beyond headlines, and yet speak with absolute certainty.

This is not simply a matter of criticism. It is something more structural, more persistent, and more troubling. Israel is not just criticized. It is singled out.

The starting point of any honest conversation must be October 7. On that day, Hamas carried out one of the most brutal terrorist attacks in modern history. Civilians were hunted, families were executed, and people were dragged across borders into captivity. This was not a battlefield confrontation. It was a massacre.

What followed should have been a moment of moral clarity across Europe, including in the Netherlands. Instead, within a remarkably short period, the narrative began to shift. Attention moved away from the atrocities themselves and toward condemnation of Israel’s response. The cause was quickly overshadowed by the consequences.

One of the most telling examples of this shift lies in the role of Dutch media, particularly the national broadcaster, NOS. Shortly after the attacks, the Israeli embassy extended an invitation to media outlets, including NOS, to view raw, unedited footage of the October 7 atrocities. This was not propaganda. It was documentation. It was evidence of what had actually taken place.

That decision matters. It matters because journalism, at its core, is about bearing witness. It is about confronting reality, even when that reality is uncomfortable, disturbing, or politically inconvenient. By refusing to engage with primary source material of such magnitude, a critical opportunity for understanding was lost.

What does it say about a media environment when it chooses not to look?

The consequences of that choice ripple outward. When journalists do not fully engage with the facts on the ground, the public receives an incomplete picture. And when the public is informed by an incomplete picture, opinions are formed on unstable foundations.

This helps explain how a society can become so firmly convinced of a narrative that lacks essential context.

At the center of that missing context is Hamas itself. Hamas is not simply a political actor or a resistance movement. It is an organization that deliberately embeds itself within civilian areas, that diverts resources away from the population it governs, and that prioritizes its military objectives over the safety of its own people.

The extensive tunnel network beneath Gaza is a clear example. These tunnels are not designed to protect civilians. They are used for warfare. Weapons are stored there. Fighters move through them. Operations are launched from them. Meanwhile, ordinary civilians are left above ground, exposed to the consequences of a conflict that Hamas itself initiated.

This is not incidental. It is a strategy.

By placing military infrastructure within civilian environments, Hamas ensures that any response against it will carry consequences. Those consequences are then used as a tool in the information war, reinforcing narratives that place all blame on Israel while obscuring Hamas’s role.

And yet, in much of the Dutch public debate, this reality is minimized or ignored entirely.

Instead, Israel is judged in isolation, as though it operates in a vacuum. Its actions are scrutinized without equal attention to the conditions that necessitate them. Its right to defend itself is acknowledged in theory, but questioned in practice.

This imbalance becomes even more apparent when compared to reactions to other global conflicts. In places like Sudan, where violence has claimed countless lives, or in Iran, where the regime systematically suppresses its own population, there is no comparable level of sustained outrage in Dutch streets or media coverage. These crises do not dominate headlines in the same way. They do not provoke the same intensity of response.

Why is Israel different?

The answer cannot be reduced to a single factor, but it is clear that Israel occupies a unique position in the global imagination. It is held to standards that are not consistently applied elsewhere. It is expected to meet expectations that no other country facing similar threats is required to meet.

This is not about silencing criticism. Criticism is a vital part of any democratic society. But criticism must be grounded in facts, in consistency, and in a willingness to confront the full reality of a situation.

When Israel is judged without context, when Hamas’s role is downplayed, and when media institutions choose not to fully engage with available evidence, the result is not informed debate. It is distortion.

For those in the Netherlands who care about truth and justice, this should be a moment for reflection. Not on whether to care about events in the Middle East, but on how that care is expressed and informed.

Understanding requires effort. It requires looking beyond headlines, questioning dominant narratives, and being willing to engage with uncomfortable truths. It requires acknowledging that conflicts are complex and that responsibility is rarely one sided.

Above all, it requires clarity about where the root of the current misery lies.

Hamas initiated this war. Hamas continues to shape its course. And as long as that reality is ignored or minimized, any conversation about the conflict will remain incomplete.

If the goal is to stand for truth, then that truth must be faced in full. Not selectively. Not partially. But completely.

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)