The Ajax-Maccabi Tel Aviv football match in Amsterdam last Wednesday, which regrettably escalated into violence, has not only sparked crucial discussions in our country, the Netherlands, but also underscored the urgent need to address the pressing societal tensions among different groups. This incident has not only triggered national debates about the withdrawal of the Dutch passport from perpetrators of violence but also highlighted the immediate need for answers to these complex issues.

Following the recent Israeli–Palestine conflict, a long-standing and complex geopolitical issue, and the war in Gaza, a region that has been a hotbed of conflict for decades, the football match sadly provided a 'perfect' opportunity for lawless individuals to cause mayhem. This saw supporters of Israel and Palestine, who were likely still reeling from the emotional and political fallout of these events, attacking each other – a deplorable scene, yet an eye-opener in a generally peaceful and highly tolerant Dutch society.

As a law-abiding Dutch citizen, I totally condemn lawlessness. Nothing, I repeat, nothing, justifies violence; we must strongly condemn criminality and aggressively punish lawbreakers. It is the government's task and responsibility to prevent such incidents through effective law enforcement and social policies. This includes measures such as increased police presence at high-risk events, early intervention programs for at-risk youth, and promoting tolerance and understanding in our communities. The recent violence at the Ajax-Maccabi Tel Aviv football match has put this responsibility in the spotlight, generating hot debates in the Dutch parliament, pitching politicians against one another while pointing accusing fingers at one another.  

'Yes, there is a group of young people with a migration background who do not share the values ​​of Dutch society, who turn their backs on society and use anti-Semitic violence', said Prime Minister Dick Schoof.

For clarity's sake, the term "migration background" applies to Dutch citizens whose parent or parents was/were born outside the Netherlands, irrespective of whether those parents live(d) in the Netherlands and regardless of how many years (ago) the parent lived/live in the country. So, a person born in the Netherlands and has lived all their life in the country, whose either parent was or both parents were not born in the Netherlands, is regarded as a Dutch person with a "migration background."

While the right-wing coalition of PVV, VVD, NSC and BBB previously pointed the finger at the 'failed integration' of 'Islamic minorities' that allegedly caused the riots, the left-wing opposition demanded that the right-wing coalition partners needed to counterbalance their allegations and arguments rather than 'convicting entire population groups.' This call for a balanced approach is crucial in ensuring fairness in the discourse.

NSC leader Nicolien van Vroonhoven, who believed "authorities failed" to prevent the violence, insisted that "What we saw in Amsterdam was not retaliation for football riots. These were coordinated actions against Jews and Israelis."

The events surrounding the Ajax - Maccabi Tel Aviv football match have been causing unrest for a week. Apart from the main narrative of the riot, on Wednesday, Israeli supporters pulled Palestinian flags off buildings and tore them up, shouting anti-Arab derogatory, among other things, under the watchful eye of the police. On the other hand, a football match, which ordinarily would have been a fun event, was turned into an ethnic, political and religious rally. Apart from anarchists on both sides, innocent Jews and Arabs who have nothing to do with football or the Middle East conflict became unfortunate victims of criminality and lawlessness. This is totally unacceptable. Some critics wonder why the government's narratives and criticism centre only on 'minority groups' and Dutch citizens with double nationality. At the same time, videos and photos on social media clearly show that the culprits of the violence were not only minorities or Dutch citizens with a migration background. This lack of clarity on culpability is a cause for concern and a call for more transparency. We must harshly denounce any anti-semitism or anti-Arab sentiment, which only fuels hatred and creates a gulf of vicious violence and killings.

Following the riot, Prime Minister Schoof said it is 'conceivable' that the Dutch nationality of the perpetrators might be revoked if found guilty of anti-Semitic violence if they have dual nationality.

As much as one supports harsh punishment for criminality and lawlessness, the withdrawal of the Dutch nationality or passport is only possible under Dutch law in case of a conviction for a terrorist offence or if the culprit is a danger to national security. However, the new government wants to investigate whether the law can be expanded to cover anti-Semitic violence. Mr Schoof added.

Some legal experts doubt the legality of such an action. According to Professor of Nationality Law Gerard René de Groot, the Dutch State can only confiscate a passport "in the case of behaviour that harms the essential interests of the government."

"It must concern very serious crimes; jihadism could fall under that - like what you saw in Syria and Iraq. The Netherlands applied that then. But a normal crime, such as murder, does not fall under that." Professor Gerard René de Groot explained.

"What happened in Amsterdam is of course very unpleasant in itself. And if there is anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic violence, that is of course reprehensible. But it seems unlikely to me that the passport can be taken away for this." He went further.

The discourse and narrative around the recent Ajax - Maccabi Tel Aviv football match violence have caused many hefty debates and raised provoking questions, among them:

• Are perpetrators of the violence only "minority groups" or people with a "migration background?"
• Are non-Dutch rioters or Maccabi Tel Aviv football fans equally culprits of the violence?
• Suppose the Dutch government takes the nationality or the Dutch passports of perpetrators of anti-Semitic violence who have dual nationality. Will the same punishment apply to perpetrators without double nationality or migration backgrounds?
• Can one be made Stateless, according to the international law?
• If the Dutch government should revoke one's citizenship based on antisemitic grounds, should the same punishment apply to racism, sexism, and anti-homo?  

As the government debates the possibility of revoking the passports of citizens convicted of anti-Semitic violence, it is crucial that our politicians also consider the potential consequences of their actions. The answers to the above questions will not only shape the government's measures but also have a significant and potentially far-reaching impact on the state of lawlessness and racial tension in our country.

Either way, our leaders' handling of the football violence aftermath could determine whether some critics would accuse them of inciting racism to fight anti-semitism or just make a mere political statement aimed at earning favours and votes.