Dutch Police Grapple with Officers Refusing to Guard Jewish Sites: A Growing Ethical and Operational Crisis

Dutch Police

In recent months, the Dutch police force has been thrust into a growing controversy surrounding officers who have refused to provide security for Jewish sites and events, citing personal “moral dilemmas.” The issue, which has been acknowledged by the leadership of the national police force, has raised significant concerns about the balance between individual officers’ moral beliefs and their professional duty to protect all citizens impartially. This situation has sparked debates about the role of law enforcement in multicultural societies, the nature of conscientious objection in public service, and the implications for the safety of Jewish communities in the Netherlands.

The Emergence of a Crisis: Conscientious Objections Among Officers

The controversy first came to light when Michel Theeboom and Marcel de Weerd, representatives of the Jewish Police Network, voiced their concerns about colleagues who refused to protect Jewish sites and events, such as the National Holocaust Museum.

The National Holocaust Museum in Amsterdam

According to the two officers, some within the force have cited moral objections to guarding Jewish institutions, a stance that has only become more pronounced amidst the ongoing geopolitical conflicts in the Middle East, particularly the recent Hamas-Israel conflict.

Speaking to Nieuw Israëlisch Weekblad and De Telegraaf, Theeboom and de Weerd pointed out that officers’ reluctance to protect Jewish sites was indicative of a broader trend in the police force—a growing tendency to accommodate moral objections even in situations where public safety should be the overriding concern. “There are colleagues who no longer want to protect Jewish targets or events,” Theeboom said. “They talk about ‘moral dilemmas,’ and I see a tendency emerging to give in to that. That would truly mark the beginning of the end. I’m concerned about that.”

These officers’ objections are not occurring in a vacuum. As De Weerd noted, many younger police officers are reportedly ignorant of the country’s history, including the Dutch police force’s complicity in the persecution of Jews during World War II. This historical context makes the current reluctance to guard Jewish sites all the more alarming to Jewish leaders and their allies within law enforcement.

Yellow Star of David with text "Jood" (Jew) that Dutch Jews were obliged to wear during the German occupation of the Netherlands in the Second World War

The Role of the Police: Protecting All Citizens

The core issue at hand is the conflict between personal belief and professional duty. Police officers, as public servants, are tasked with ensuring the safety and security of all citizens, regardless of race, religion, or personal biases. In theory, the police force should be a neutral body, acting impartially to enforce the law and protect everyone equally. However, the moral objections raised by some officers challenge this principle, threatening to undermine the very foundation of law enforcement.

Mireille Beentjes, spokeswoman for the national police leadership, admitted that the force takes individual objections into account when drawing up duty rosters. “There is no hard and fast policy,” she said, “The line is that police staff are allowed to have moral objections.” Beentjes explained that while objections may be considered when schedules are created, officers are still expected to perform their duties if there is an urgent security need.

“If there’s an urgent task, you will be deployed, whether you want to or not. You are expected to behave professionally. Others shouldn’t notice anything.”

National police commissioner Janny Knol also emphasized that personal views should not interfere with public safety.

“Police staff are people, and they have the right to their own views and the emotions that go with them,” she said. “But where people’s security is concerned, that is our top priority. We are here for everyone.”

This stance reflects the delicate balance law enforcement agencies must strike: respecting the individuality of officers while maintaining the neutrality and professionalism that public safety demands.

Moral Objections Across the Board: A Wider Phenomenon

While the current focus is on officers refusing to guard Jewish sites, this issue is part of a broader phenomenon in which officers are increasingly citing moral objections to various assignments. As Nine Kooiman, president of the Dutch National Police Union, explained, conscientious objections are not limited to Jewish events. Officers have also expressed reluctance to participate in operations related to farmers’ protests, Extinction Rebellion demonstrations, and other politically sensitive events.

“The question is whether we should act on these objections,” Kooiman said. “But if you give way to everyone, there’s no end to it. When you’re serving society, you have to leave your personal considerations and emotions out of it.”

The underlying fear is that by allowing officers to opt out of duties they find objectionable, law enforcement risks becoming fragmented, with officers selectively enforcing the law based on their personal beliefs rather than legal and ethical obligations.

Koen Simmers, another official at the police union, echoed these concerns.

“It is unacceptable that there are police officers who refuse to carry out tasks and orders, such as protecting Jewish, Christian, Islamic institutions, demonstrations, or social events. The police are there for everyone,” he said.

Simmers’ statement underscores a key point: law enforcement is, by definition, a profession that requires impartiality. Officers must protect all citizens, regardless of their personal views on the groups or individuals they are tasked with safeguarding.

A Political and Historical Context

The reluctance of some Dutch police officers to guard Jewish sites is occurring in a broader context of rising antisemitism in the Netherlands and across Europe. The Center for Information and Documentation on Israel (CIDI) has reported an increase of over 800% in antisemitic incidents following the October 7 Hamas attacks. Jewish institutions and individuals have faced heightened threats, further intensifying the need for robust law enforcement protection.

Al-Quds, October 14, 2023 (Palestinian Authority)

In recent months, antisemitic incidents have escalated significantly. In March, pro-Palestinian protesters demonstrated outside the opening of the National Holocaust Museum in Amsterdam, attended by Israeli President Isaac Herzog. In April, a former hostage freed from Hamas captivity was verbally abused by Dutch airport staff. That same month, a Dutch rabbi was violently assaulted in Utrecht. In a particularly chilling case, a teenager in Germany was arrested for planning an attack on Dutch Jews while on a school trip to the Netherlands.

Al-Bilad, November 26, 2023 (Bahrain)
The cartoon’s title: “The Ugliness of Artificial Beauty.”

Against this backdrop of rising antisemitic violence, the refusal of police officers to guard Jewish sites is especially troubling. Jewish leaders and advocates fear that if law enforcement cannot be relied upon to provide adequate protection, Jewish communities will be left vulnerable to further attacks. As Theeboom and de Weerd emphasized, law enforcement must stand united in its commitment to public safety, especially in times of heightened risk.

Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders condemned officers refusing to guard Jewish institutes. 

https://x.com/geertwilderspvv/status/1841084950310764653?s=46

The Ethical Dilemma: Conscientious Objection in Law Enforcement

The ethical dilemma at the heart of this issue revolves around the concept of conscientious objection in the police force. Traditionally, conscientious objection is associated with situations such as military service, where individuals may refuse to participate in combat due to deeply held moral or religious beliefs. However, the application of this concept to law enforcement is more complicated.

As Justice Minister David van Weel argued, it is “unacceptable” for police officers to refuse to carry out their duties for reasons of conscience.

“I can’t stop what people think, feel, or believe,” he said. “But you should leave it at home. As a police officer, as soon as you put on your uniform, you have a job to do, and that job is totally neutral.”

This perspective aligns with the views of many critics who argue that allowing officers to opt out of certain assignments sets a dangerous precedent. If moral objections are permitted in one case, what is to stop officers from refusing to protect other minority groups, political events, or protests that they personally disagree with? Such a development could lead to selective law enforcement, eroding public trust in the police and exacerbating divisions within society.

Moreover, this issue raises questions about the ethical responsibilities of police officers as public servants. As Kooiman and Simmers pointed out, the primary duty of law enforcement is to protect society as a whole, regardless of individual officers’ personal beliefs. By allowing personal objections to influence duty assignments, the police risk undermining their credibility and effectiveness.

The Consequences for Jewish Communities and Beyond

If the Dutch police force continues to accommodate moral objections, the consequences could be far-reaching, particularly for Jewish communities. The rise in antisemitic violence has already created a climate of fear and insecurity, and the refusal of police officers to provide protection only compounds this sense of vulnerability. Jewish leaders worry that if officers are permitted to avoid assignments they find objectionable, Jewish communities will become even more isolated and exposed to attacks.

Beyond the Jewish community, this issue has broader implications for the entire Dutch society. Law enforcement is one of the most visible and essential public institutions, and its ability to function impartially is crucial for maintaining public order and social cohesion.

Portugese Synagogue, Amsterdam

If officers are allowed to selectively enforce the law based on personal beliefs, the trust between the police and the public could deteriorate, leading to a breakdown in the social contract that underpins democratic societies.

A Path Forward for Dutch Law Enforcement

The refusal of Dutch police officers to guard Jewish sites represents a serious ethical and operational challenge for the police force and Dutch society as a whole. While it is important to respect the individual beliefs of officers, those beliefs must not be allowed to interfere with the fundamental duty of law enforcement: to protect all citizens impartially and without bias.

As the controversy continues to unfold, it is clear that the Dutch police force must reaffirm its commitment to neutrality and professionalism. This may require revisiting policies around conscientious objection and ensuring that officers understand their ethical responsibilities as public servants. In a time of rising antisemitism and political polarization, the police must stand as a bulwark against hate and division, protecting all citizens equally and without compromise.