The Dutch political landscape has undergone a profound transformation over the past decade, with the VVD (People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy) emerging as a party increasingly driven by political opportunism. Once characterized by its center-right liberal policies, the VVD now seems to tailor its political strategy to align with prevailing political trends. This shift, marked by ideological fluidity and a willingness to adopt polarizing rhetoric, is emblematic of a broader trend in Dutch politics: the rise of division and scapegoating.  

The Evolution of the VVD: From Pragmatism to Populism  

Under the leadership of Mark Rutte during the Rutte I and II cabinets, the VVD leaned into leftist policies on key issues, appealing to a broader spectrum of voters. This pragmatism helped secure electoral success, demonstrating the party's ability to adapt to the electorate's demands. However, this calculated maneuvering took a stark turn following the rise of far-right populism, embodied by parties like the PVV (Party for Freedom).

Dylan Yesilgöz, the current leader of the VVD, has positioned the party further to the right, arguably in direct competition with the PVV. This shift was starkly evident in the party’s handling of a recent and controversial incident involving clashes between Moroccan youths and Israeli football ultras in Amsterdam.  

The Macabi Amsterdam Incident: A Case Study in Political Framing  

The incident in question occurred following a football match between Dutch club Ajax and Israeli team Macabi. After losing the match, Israeli ultras—some of whom are reportedly active IDF soldiers—engaged in aggressive actions, including property destruction, flag desecration, and even targeting Dutch and Palestinian symbols. Clashes erupted between these ultras and Dutch-Moroccan cab drivers and youths, many of whom were defending their neighborhoods from what they perceived as foreign aggression.  

Instead of addressing the full context of the incident, much of the Dutch media played a critical role in distorting the narrative. Reports overwhelmingly framed the clashes as a violent act of antisemitism, ignoring the provocations by the Macabi ultras. This framing was eagerly adopted and amplified by the VVD and other right-wing parties. Prominent figures like Dylan Yesilgöz and Geert Wilders went as far as to liken the event to a pogrom, invoking historically loaded and exaggerated comparisons.  

Populist Framing and the Self-Inflicted Wound of Leadership  

This narrative, however politically expedient, is not only misleading but counterproductive. By focusing on demonizing the Moroccan-Dutch community rather than addressing the root causes of tensions, the VVD and other leaders risk exacerbating the very integration issues they claim to combat.  

Integration is a two-way process that requires both ethnically diverse communities and broader society to invest in mutual understanding and inclusion. When political leaders and media repeatedly frame certain groups as inherently problematic or genetically resistant to Western values, they alienate entire segments of the population. This alienation can foster resentment, erode trust in institutions, and, paradoxically, create the social fractures that lead to genuine integration challenges.  

For Moroccan-Dutch citizens, many of whom were born and raised in the Netherlands, these narratives send a clear and damaging message: no matter how rooted you are in Dutch society, you will always be viewed as an outsider. This sense of exclusion undermines efforts to build cohesive communities and risks pushing some individuals towards disengagement.  

Neglecting Dutch Citizens in Amsterdam  

The handling of this incident also highlights a failure of leadership: the lack of support for Dutch citizens in Amsterdam who are caught in the crossfire of these politicized narratives. Instead of protecting and advocating for the rights of all residents, including the Moroccan-Dutch community, political elites have focused on scoring populist points.  

By failing to recognize the legitimate grievances of these citizens—such as defending their neighborhoods from aggression by foreign ultras—Dutch leadership is neglecting its responsibility to foster safety and equality for all. This neglect only deepens divisions and further complicates the path to meaningful integration.  

The Media’s Role in Escalating Divisions  

The media’s complicity in these events cannot be ignored. By uncritically amplifying one-sided narratives and failing to investigate the full context, they have contributed to a climate of misinformation and mistrust. This has provided political actors with a powerful tool to stoke division, leaving the broader public ill-equipped to discern the truth.  

Moreover, the problem is exacerbated by concerns of foreign influence in Dutch media. The globalization of information networks has made it easier for external actors to shape narratives, either by directly funding certain outlets or by influencing the tone and framing of stories. This influence can subtly steer public opinion, favoring specific political agendas or foreign policy goals that do not necessarily align with the needs or values of Dutch society.

In the case of the Macabi incident, for example, the amplification of an antisemitism narrative—while ignoring the provocations and aggressive actions by the Macabi ultras—raises questions about the impartiality of the coverage. Were these oversights a result of poor journalism, or was there pressure from influential groups, both domestic and foreign, to frame the event in a particular way? Regardless of the answer, the damage has been done: the media's failure to present a balanced account has deepened societal divisions and provided a convenient scapegoat for political elites.

The Broader Implications 

The VVD’s populist turn, amplified by media distortions, underscores a worrying trend in Dutch politics: the normalization of divisive rhetoric at the expense of unity and inclusivity. For decades, the Netherlands prided itself on its tolerance and multiculturalism. However, the current political climate threatens these values, as parties like the VVD increasingly embrace populist tactics to maintain relevance. By demonizing certain communities and exploiting incidents for political gain, Dutch leadership is effectively shooting itself in the foot. Alienating citizens, creating distrust, and fostering resentment are not solutions—they are accelerants for the very problems these leaders claim to address.

A Call for Reflection  

As the Netherlands grapples with these challenges, it is essential to question the motivations behind such political strategies. Are they truly aimed at resolving societal issues, or are they mere attempts to consolidate power at the expense of marginalized groups?  

The VVD’s current trajectory, amplified by a complicit media, suggests the latter, raising urgent questions about the future of Dutch democracy and its commitment to equality. It is up to citizens, activists, and political leaders committed to justice and inclusivity to push back against this tide of polarization and advocate for a society that recognizes the shared humanity of all its members.  

The time has come to hold both the political elite and the media accountable for their role in shaping a more divided and intolerant Netherlands. Fostering integration, inclusivity, and unity is not only a political necessity—it is a moral imperative. The Netherlands must rise to this challenge before it becomes a country defined not by its values but by its divisions.