Amsterdam police confiscates server left-wing ISP A/I at American request | Hacker News Reader

Amsterdam police confiscates server left-wing ISP A/I at American request

nrc.nl

171 pointsjeroenhd162 comments

I am a bit surprised to hear that the U.S. government can still order around Dutch police like a butler. Maybe the Dutch regime is struggling to actually effectively decouple themselves from the U.S.? Would love to hear an expert weigh in.

ASML weighs in on this, they get a key component from the US (a lens iirc). There is no real possibility of complete decoupling in the modern world. You would have to go back to a much less modern world for true decoupling.

Wow, what a bad take.

The EUV lenses are made by Zeiss in Germany AFAIK. But to even suggest that ASML is dictating US-Dutch diplomacy, two NATO members with similar values and goals, is hilariously off.

I heard the lens thing from another HN comment, it looks like that person misremembered lens vs light source.

> The light source as a whole is engineered by Cymer, a San Diego company ASML bought in 2013 specifically to control this piece.

https://www.makesureiknowit.com/blog/who-supplies-asml

I'm not suggesting dictation, just that there are deep ties in the global supply chain that make decoupling impossible.

but wow, way to read way too much into this and extrapolate into hyperbole?

I understand that there are complex global supply chains, but my expectation is A) that these are somewhat mutually beneficial relations and B) that their day-to-day operation is somewhat confined to non-governmental spheres.

From my reading of the article, it seems like the U.S. was able to order around the police in Amsterdam without going through a system to check if the Dutch government approves of the action. That’s mostly my confusion.

Why should the fact that these two entities are NATO members have bearing on whether America can demand Dutch citizens be arrested?

If they're willing to go to war for each other, I'd say they're willing to take down a server or two for each other too.

Obviously not a perfect analogy but it shows that US-Dutch relationships very much predate ASML and extend far beyond commercial interests. I have a similar problem with the Taiwan "silicon shield" meme that's been going around, as if the US hasn't supported the republican Chinese forces since the 30's, including with troops on the ground.

NATO is supposed to be a defensive action protecting Europe militarily.

Why is it allowed to impose its force on the civilians it is protecting?

Is it because A/I are "terrorists" and "terrorists" are NATO responsibility?

> Why is it allowed to impose its force on the civilians it is protecting?

I don't think co-operation on this type of crime is part of the treaty itself but the treaty doesn't mean much if the two countries don't have a good diplomatic relationship.

> Is it because A/I are "terrorists" and "terrorists" are NATO responsibility?

Wtf are you on about?

This has nothing to do with NATO. This same kind of thing happens with the US and non-NATO countries as well. It often takes the coordinated effort of several countries to take down, in example, botnets.

Light source, not lens.

as stated in my peer comment made prior to yours

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50091084

Your comparison doesn't hold. ASML depends on components owned by the US, but US companies also depend on components created only by ASML. It is a mutual dependency. It doesn't imply that Dutch police should go around doing the bidding of a foreign government. This is much worse and should be protested.

please see my comment one level deeper in the tree

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50091084

I agree and find my country's behavior unacceptable as well. Some of us are doing what we can under the current regime, but it is not easy and comes with real risk. America is not in a good place right now.

"Your comparison doesn't hold."

Yes, it does. Dependence may be mutual, but the leverage is not equal. Trump could make a Truth Social post tomorrow and erase billions of ASML market cap, and they know he's irrational enough to do it. ASML and the Netherlands can't reciprocate such force without inflicting great harm on themselves.

I'm not arguing that's right or just. Only that it is. If you doubt it, go figure out why ASML shares dropped ~5% last April 7th. These people hang on the US government's every utterance.

Something to think about when selecting a host nation for your international hacktivist IT operation.

The Dutch are with 17 million people and all our stuff runs on MS. Even a judge from the international criminal court had an Amazon Echo in her living room. We, on average, don't know and don't care.

All this sovereignty stuff is still quite contained in our nerd bubble I feel.

Well it‘s been the second most talked about topic on any German govtech conference I’ve been to in the past two years.

We will see the impact of this in a few years..

Five years ago it became its own official federal IT architecture guideline: https://nationale-it-architekturrichtlinie.gov.de/2_Architek...

The french government is planning its move to Linux, so there's that

Replying to myself: my current theory is that the Dutch regime weighed the risk of political potential blowback from the U.S. (specifically executive office), and did not consider it worthwhile protecting the final servers of a group that is winding down anyways.

Again, would love to hear a domain expert weigh in! Also because I walk past this data center every day :)

Big assumption the Dutch gov did not ask for something in exchange.

The Netherlands is a pretty pragmatic place, at the end of the day. America is a massive trading, investment [1] and security partner to it. (Going back to our founding.)

And Dutch voters’ views on policing are currently tending right: “84 percent of Dutch adults believe police struggle to maintain authority. Ten percent disagreed, and 6 percent said they had no opinion” [2].

[1] https://www.government.nl/latest/weblogs/the-work-of-the-min...

[2] https://nltimes.nl/2026/07/12/80-dutch-think-police-authorit...

They can't and that's not what happened. The Dutch government believes Antifa to commit illegal acts. Enough for them to at least consider classifying them a terrorist organization about a year ago.

The thing is the moment antifa is mentioned it is most definitely politics. Antifa as a single cohesive organisation doesn't exist, the fact they even considered it might do is a political position. What does exist is radical left organisations some of which cross the legal line, and these can be targeted by mutual legal assistance requests. It'll be interesting to see if anything actually comes of this or it's a damp squib, these groups, esp the more militant anti-capitalist lot have learned to practicing opsec the hard way, e.g. getting nicked.

> The Dutch government believes Antifa to commit illegal acts.

"antifa" does not exist. It is a handwavy word used by the far right as a placeholder for anything they don't like and want to destroy. But there is no such organization or group.

This is easily searchable and we can see several left-wing groups calling themselves antifa

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(Germany)#Contemporary_...

Pulling the "does not exist" card might work with uninformed people, not here

Calling themselves antifa is the same as calling themselves left wing. It's not an organization per se and it IS an hand wavy word used by american fascists to describe their enemies.

Headline seems to be a bit strange as the A/I collective has dissolved officially as of September 18. The history of events can be followed here [0]

[0] https://keepitfree.ai/

https://archive.ph/2EsyR

it's funny to look at people who are outraged by us interference in dutch politics, but at the same time, no one cares that the united states imposes sanctions on countries that pursue their policies towards iran and russia, interfering in their foreign policy. Double standards and damn BBC bots

Funny how American authorities did not do much about "antifa" and A/I and only acted once it was clear they were going against Zionist interests...

This is shameful and the Dutch should be also ashamed to act as lap dogs.

We still have White Nationalists in khakis and masks rolling up in rented trucks to harass people based on race and creed.

One group threatens property damage, the other people damage.

One of them is considered a terrorist org.

Idk about what the actual objective comparison is, but around me (Capitol Hill, Seattle) many left anarchist types definitely threaten violence. I’m not sure they’d actually follow through and a lot of it is communist revolution larping, but there is probably something to it. Or at the very least they’d do things like hide violent fugitives.

Someone left-aligned (and acting alone, not an official terrorist group) assassinated Charlie Kirk in the US.

A group of left aligned people got in over their heads on a protest action and one shot a police officer.

My too-online left friends worship Luigi IRL, one even recently got a tattoo meant to reference him.

Right wing attacks used to be more common than left aligned ones in the US, but that trend has recently flipped: https://www.csis.org/analysis/left-wing-terrorism-and-politi...

I’m not convinced there are any real terrorist groups operating the way e.g the Weathermen were back in the 70s. But there is some kind of violent left tendency rising, and we could easily be headed that way.

I don't see how there's any basis for concluding that Tyler Robinson is "left-aligned." He seems pretty apolitical. He did it to defend his girlfriend's honor, or something. If you think his dating preferences make him "left-aligned," that seems more revealing of your own leanings

"He seems pretty apolitical" is a crazy thing to say about someone who assassinated someone for political reasons.

The politics are not super clear, if there are any. I think Kirk‘s assassination is much more akin to John Lennon’s murder. It seems nuts to assassinate someone so political for apolitical reasons, but that is exactly what happened to Lennon.

> I think Kirk‘s assassination is much more akin to John Lennon’s murder.

Not even close.

I’m using left broadly here. I myself am well “on the left” in the USA.

> He did it to defend his [boy]friend's honor, or something.

He murdered Charlie for his boyfriend? What are you talking about? No such accusation has been made. You're literally just inventing stuff.

There is a lot of misinformation in this post that is parroted from right-wing propaganda channels. I know we are not supposed to engage in ideological battles here on HN, so I am not going to try to convince anyone here. Simply try to fact check any of the individual claims here by a simple web-search, and the whole argument will fall apart on factual ground very quickly.

And where do you place the people at the US Capitol on January 6th?

In the same practical bucket. Horseshoe theory [1]. (Anyone willing to use violence to promote their politics has more akin with others willing to cross that threshold than with anything in the normal political universe.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

Horseshoe theory is not a serious theory. Nobody who takes political science seriously puts any merit into horseshoe theory, any more then they put in the horoscope or the predictions of Nostradamus.

There is zero evidence that horseshoe theory describes our political reality. It is merely a convenient narrative among centrists (or even right-wingers) simply because it “feels right” and is therefor self-evident, i.e. right because of the vibes.

You’re saying the tactics of the far left and far right don’t bear striking resemblance in a democratic system? (Their values, populations and guiding ideologies are obviously different. But they’re also heterogenous within group.)

Extremism is, broadly, extremism. Combating specific instances requires more nuance. But calling it out does not.

I am saying that this theory only exists as a meme. It has exactly zero academic rigor and should be taken as seriously as any conspiracy theory or crackpot theory you find online.

Whatever you read from this theory is, just like, your opinion, and nothing more.

> Whatever you read from this theory is, just like, your opinion

Sure. It’s shorthand for illiberal interests being broadly similar, something that does have explanatory value.

> should be taken as seriously as any conspiracy theory or crackpot theory you find online

Do you have a good academic refutation?

It is a shorthand for what you think is similar. There are no evidence for this theory.

This theory is easily testable. If this theory were true, we would have evidence for it. We don‘t. Even your own link clearly states that. Therefor we don‘t have any reason to believe it is true, other then our own biases.

> This theory is easily testable

In what form? Who has tested it?

The refutations that point out the same people aren’t swinging between far left and right is usual social science bullshittery—nobody claimed that. The actual claim—my claim—is around tactics. I am not aware of an academic refutation of this.

I'd ordinarily be sympathetic to the argument that calling it a theory is nonsense. But (a) I didn't name it, (b) it's a term of popular discourse and (c) political science is full of hypotheses branded as theories.

This is all explained in the link you yourself posted. It also cites several studies which debunk the theory.

> my claim—is around tactics. I am not aware of an academic refutation of this.

This is Motte and Baily. But still, this weaker claim is also testable. Define your tactics, and count the occurrences. If horseshoe theory is right, then the far (sic) left and the far right should have a similar number of occurrences, either one higher then that of the political center. You are making a testable claim, then test it, otherwise I have no reason to believe it, and neither does academia (and they don‘t).

If you are speaking tactics. The far (sic) left is known to engage in mass demonstration, direct action and mutual aid. Direct action includes stuff like blocking highways, blocking shipping docks, general strikes, etc. when does the far right ever engage in those sorts of tactics? Mutual aid includes stuff like anti-racism workshops, food not bombs, doctors without borders, bail funds, heck Alcoholics Anonymous is an Anarchist Mutual Aid organization. When does the far right ever use mutual aid as a tactic?

The only type of shared tactic that the far left and the far right engage with is political violence and if you count the occurrences of you will see that the far right has far more occurrences then the far left. Heck if you count state violence as political violence by the center you would find that the center is the most violent political ideology by far.

> cites several studies which debunk the theory

But it doesn’t? Those studies refute specific interpretations, in my mind comically over-specific ones.

> When does the far right ever use mutual aid as a tactic?

Le Bastion. Welfare chauvinism more broadly. The oath keepers running around doing disaster recovery and whatnot.

> only type of shared tactic that the far left and the far right engage with is political violence and if you count the occurrences of you will see that the far right has far more occurrences then the far left

Fair and agreed.

Anecdata: Bannon and Sanders speaking at the same event against data centers. Nonviolent, even. Illiberal? Maybe

Now I hear rumors of breaking "the" political firewall (ie, gap in horseshoe?) in France and Germany. Of reviving DDR style parties in East Germany that can work with AfD. Incoming data ..

> Those studies refute specific interpretations, in my mind comically over-specific ones.

That is the thing about science, of which Political science is definitely a science. Science engages with concrete and testable hypothesis. If a scientist wants to engage seriously with horseshoe theory then they have to have a concrete interpretation of it. Otherwise the scientist ends up being like Nostradamus and just put up intentionally vague predictions that will become true if you just interpret events exactly such that they line up with the vague prediction. And at that point, they are no longer a scientist, but a crook.

If horseshoe theory is stated in such a way that it becomes unfalsifiable then it is not a scientific theory. In which case it is still an unserious theory, worthy as only the meme that it is.

> Science engages with concrete and testable hypothesis

Sure. You raised mutual aid as a tactic. I shared examples of it being common in both camps.

> science, of which Political science is definitely a science

It can be. A lot of academic political science is not. The refutations on the Wikipedia are not really a refutation of the hypothesis in its strongest form, they’re akin to refuting evolution because your cat’s kittens still look like cats.

> If horseshoe theory is stated in such a way that it becomes unfalsifiable

It’s not. Political violence, conspiracy theorizing on social media and illiberalism around free speech are falsifiable claims.

Indeed. My point has always been that this theory is in fact falsifiable, and yet nobody has manage to come up with a convincing test results in the theory’s favor. This is enough for me to deem it unserious as an actual theory and relegate it to meme status.

As for shared tactics (e.g. mutual aid), the fact that occurrences exist is not enough to convince me (nor academia). Occurrences will exist of most tactics across the political spectrum. What you need is to tally the number of occurrences and show a statistically significant deviation between the center, but insignificant deviation between the far left and the far right.

If you want to be even more rigorous you would put severity weights on the occurrences. For example, blocking a weapons shipments to Israel by shutting down a port for 5 days would of high severity in the direct action category; but shouting slogans at a politician during a town hall would have low severity in the same category. Similarly conspiracy theorizing tends to be extremely common on the right (not even the far right; just the right) but it also exists on the left, and even the center (see e.g. Blue MAGA), however the pervasiveness of said conspiracy theories tends to be very limited on the left and on the center (less common * less severe), however on the right these conspiracy theories are extremely common and—equally importantly—pervasive (more common * more severe).

I‘m not gonna do this study, I don’t have the means nor the skills to do it. But somebody can. And until somebody does and shows convincing results, with a replicatable methodology, and independents teams replicates these results a couple of times, I will remain unconvinced that this theory is a serious theory with considering as anything more then a meme.

> What you need is to tally the number of occurrences and show a statistically significant deviation between the center

Has someone shown far-left groups tend to have mutual aid?

> I will remain unconvinced that this theory is a serious theory with considering as anything more then a meme

Sure. That's an opinion. You're allowed to say there is no rigorous evidence to support horseshoe theory, and I'd agree with you. What you can't claim is it's bullshit or has been debunked–we don't know.

> Has someone shown far-left groups tend to have mutual aid?

Find your nearest Food not Bombs stall and see for your self. I don‘t know whether anyone has ever done a survey about it. I am not a political scientist. But anarchist literature is filled to the brim about mutual aid. So at least the far-left talks a hell lot about mutual aid.

I know the political center engages a lot with mutual aid as well though. Doctors without borders (probably left wing; lets be honest), Alcoholics Anonymous (apolitical), and even Dolly Parton’s Imagination Library (center for sure) are all mutual aid groups which many centrists participate in.

I would actually argue that even though mutual-aid is central to far-left (particularly anarchist) ideology, it has been embraced by more centrist/liberal ideology, and is popular from the left to the center. If somebody has done a tally, I would be super interested in seeing the numbers if this is true or not.

---

EDIT: Not a tally (and I’ve only skimmed the article) but some political scientists have similar speculations about mutual aid being widely practiced.

https://compass.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/soc...

This paper discusses the potential that mutual aid is in fact left wing in nature, but in practice it is often free from political ideology

> Mutual aid is a practice that might struggle against established power(s) but as we have shown, many forms of mutual aid may tactically engage with existing institutions, and other forms of change making and organising, to achieve their aims. This means that mutual aid, while always prefigurative, might or might not be informed by an anarchist ideology.

> the far right has far more occurrences (of political violence) then the far left

In the United States, in the last decade, obviously not. There’s been a spate of high profile assassination attempts by the left, nationwide rioting for BLM and waves of vigilante violence against ICE, whereas the far right is… the capital riot and the guy that attacked Paul Pelosi.

> waves of vigilante violence against ICE

This has never happened. ICE systematically breaking the law, especially when it comes to American citizens, on the other hand, counts as far-right violence.

> whereas the far right is… the capital riot and the guy that attacked Paul Pelosi

And Gretchen Whitmer. Neo nazis in Charlottesville. Militias like Oath Keepers. The entire capital riot group getting blanket pardons. And that’s just America.

Extremism is predominantly a far-right problem right now. Anyone claiming otherwise is speaking beyond the data.

> This has never happened.

Yes it has. Vigilantes coordinated in Signal chats to spread guides to interfering with law enforcement via "de-arresting" people, used SUVs to block police offers, one armed man attacked an officer detaining a woman and another drove over an officer. Enforcing immigration law is a normal practice and is not "far right".

I already discussed the capital rioters, and imprisoned non violent rioters did obvously deserve a pardon. Sure, add Gretchen Whitmer.

Who are the "Oath Keepers"? I don't think anyone I know on the left or the right has ever heard of them. Did they no anything noteworthy?

> Anyone claiming otherwise is speaking beyond the data.

You also completely ignored the assassinations and assassination attempts in your reply, which was telling.

Nobody cares. “Zero academic rigour” isn’t an argument. “Your opinion and nothing more” is exactly what most of your top level comments in this story are: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50093362.

You would learn a lot by attending a debate class at your local high school before returning to post.

> You would learn a lot by attending a debate class at your local high school before returning to post.

This is a very weird insult. We are not doing highschool debate here. I know for a fact that I am an exceptionally poor competitive debater (I tried it ones as a young adult and was thrown off by the easiest debate tactics). This is a tech forum of nerds who talk about nerdy subjects, in the hopes that we might entertain each other with interesting stuff. And in this subthread the nerdy subject is Horseshoe Theory, in which I share insights as a leftist, and as somebody that knows somewhat about the scientific method, and a tiny bit about political science (albeit via social psychology from my undergraduate degree).

What I care about is conveying my arguments. I don‘t care about debate tactics meant to throw my “opponent” off their guard, and score some points by a panel of judges.

> This is a very weird insult.

It's not an insult. You would learn that there's no value in stating un unsupported opinion.

Horseshoe theory is absolutely real.

Gosh, I don't know about everyone else, but I'm convinced! Thank you, blanket-assertion from internet rando!

"Sarcasm I now see to be, in general, the language of the Devil; for which reason I have, long since, as good as renounced it."

– Thomas Carlyle, Sartor Resartus, describing how he stopped using sarcasm in his essays because it provokes hostility. He goes on describe the ironic person as a "pest to society."

Have you read the comment this person is replying to, which also has zero evidence or reason?

The onus is on whoever presents the theory to provide evidence for it. This isn’t even the case of “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” because horseshoe theory isn’t an “extraordinary claim”, it is a mundane claim and thus only require mundane evidence. However, as of today, not even mundane evidence has been provided to back up this theory.

What criteria would you accept as evidence? Because apparently the fact that the far-right and far-left often find themselves as strange bedfellows united against liberalism is, ostensibly, not evidence of the horseshoe theory as it's colloquially known.

If we are talking about strange bed-fellows, then I think the center is just as guilty as the far-left is. In Europe centrists government are just as likely to host MAGA officials, to agree with MAGA policy, or otherwise cater to the MAGA right. In the USA you will find centrists like Gavin Newsom go to far right podcasters such as the late Charlie Kirk, you will find very few politicians on the left (particularly on the far left; Kat Abughazaleh; Kashima Savant; etc.) doing the same.

But you asked me a clear question and I will give a clear answer: The gold standard is a peer reviewed study which demostrates with data and a replicatable methodology that certain political behavior has a statistically similar distribution on the two extremes of the political spectrum, but a statistically significant deviation of that distribution in the political spectrum. If such as study existed, and had been replicated a couple of times by independent team of researchers, also published in a peer-reviewed journal, then I would accept that horseshoe theory might be a serious theory, worthy of something more then the meme-status it currently holds.

> far right podcasters such as the late Charlie Kirk

oh dear. Before you discuss horseshoe theory you may wish to learn what the far right is.

> The gold standard is a peer reviewed study

Which would limit 'gold standard' political metadiscussion to left leaning academia. It almost sounds like capturing the narrative is your goal. How odd.

> left leaning academia

Is this a conspiracy theory I sense?

I am starting to suspect that if horseshoe theory were correct (it is not), you would find yourself agreeing with the far left much more then you would like to admit.

---

And to any third parties reading this. I am on the left of the political spectrum for sure (an anarchist), and given nailer post here and elsewhere in this thread, it is very likely they are on the far-right. Do you honestly believe me and nailer have more in common then e.g. me and JumpCrisscross (who started this subthread) and seems to be in the center politically?

> The onus is on whoever presents the theory to provide evidence for it.

No, the person that makes any argument must provide evidence for it. You are the person that suggested there is no connection between the far left and the far right. Support your case or stop posting.

I don’t know what “real” horseshoe theory is.

What people I see are usually referring to is that the far right and far left end up being fundamentally anti-liberal, and in their anti-liberal beliefs they more closely resemble each other (meet back up on the horse shoe) than they do the mainstream liberal left/right.

Amazing, you disagree. Only people you don’t like support this concept but they have no reason to. Solid rationale there.

Easy example: left wing racism against Jewish people uses the same words (‘zios’) and same conspiracy theories (‘dead babies’) as the far right does. The left also now bizarrely supports Islam which an is extreme conservative movement.

That would be right wing political violence.

Did you assume I’d think otherwise?

Figure 4 shows left-wing political violence completely flat with a 1 year decrease in right wing violence as the basis for your “flipped” narrative. Table 1 shows the last 10 years highlighting 152 right wing attacks causing 112 deaths and 35 left wing attacks causing 13 deaths…

I don’t think OP made a claim of similar prevalence. Just that we have legitimately threatening elements on both the far/anarchist left and far/faschist right.

You quoted the "trend has recently flipped" but the graph showing the total numbers show right wing violence is still by far the majority, and the 2025 datapoint was incomplete.

> My too-online left friends worship Luigi IRL

And? When you see systemic/societal killing regularly, are we supposed to clutch pearls when one very very rich and powerful guy dies?

> got in over their heads on a protest action

Yeah, two small groups that weren't connected were all made an example of.

> Someone left-aligned

Total conjecture.

The weather underground accidentally killed more of their own than they did in their actual bombings. They went after property. Right wing terror goes after soft targets like kids and worshipers.

Does any of this actually address what I said that rightwing terror groups are going completely unbothered?

Do we? There’s videos of weird masked people calling themselves Patriot Front that seem to all have purchased all their clothing from the same vendor, and seem like well groomed fit men, odd for a group the normally consists of fat guys with beards, with not a single known member.

Regarding people damage: we’ve obviously had multiple left wing assassination attempts on Trump, United Healthcare CEO, the Israeli embassy staff, Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the UFC 250 terror attack, and more.

I can think of the attack on Nancy Pelosi’s husband as a possible right wing attack on a person but I can’t think of many more.

What makes you think the Dutch government isn’t also occupied by Zionists?

If you claim that, you have to back it up.

Otherwise, assuming there are Zionists everywhere is borderline antisemitic.

It’s 2026; trying to conflate criticism of Israel with antisemitism is not going to work anymore.

If you mean well, you should know that the specific term “Zionist occupied government” originated as part of an antisemitic conspiracy theory. To avoid confusion you should use different phrasing; something like “the government supports Israel” would express your meaning just as well.

Let's directly quote Bibi to drive this point home since you want to imply antisemitic intent.

"I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won't get in the way." - Netanyahu

That's an occupation with no creative interpretation necessary.

Again, this phrasing was invented as part of an antisemitic conspiracy theory that has nothing to do with Netanyahu. I don’t intend to imply any antisemitic intent for someone who didn’t know this, as long as they recognize that they’re not trying to be antisemitic and choose one of the many alternative ways to say “I think my government is too friendly towards Israel” going forwards.

So many words devoted to tone policing. so few words devoted to the actual issue being discussed

The problem is that the tone makes it hard to understand the actual issue being discussed. If someone said e.g. "I think the Dutch government is run by people who unconditionally support Israel", I might respond by pointing out various actions they've taken to oppose Israeli interests. If someone says the Dutch government is "occupied by Zionists", I just don't know what they mean by that, because I've only ever heard the antisemitic meaning of this phrase.

If someone then refuses to explain what non-antisemitic thought they meant to express, I do start to have some questions.

Claiming “Zionist infiltration” of the government is not the same thing as criticizing Israel.

But it is.

Avoiding the question and refusing the back up your claim may also not work.

In 2026 it's barely concealed racism - an islamophobic trope that doesnt get called out enough.

One of these days we as a species really need to learn that Zionism and Semitism are not the same Venn circle.

Not all Zionists are Semitic (or even Jewish) and not all Semites (or even Jews) are Zionists.

Now, it’s obviously extremely easy to conflate Zionism with Semitism, and vice versa, which is a trap both the actual antisemites and those most likely to point and yell “antisemite” seem wont to fall into.

Personally I’d call that borderline antisemitic, since in either case it’s conflating an ethno-nationalist political agenda with both an ethnicity and a nationality that may not subscribe to or support that political agenda at all.

Yeah, a lot of Jews oppose Zionism for religious reasons. It's not fair to lump them together like that.

The word antisemitism itself is pretty funny though, as a thought-terminating cliche.

Can you imagine if any time the news media criticized white people, I could get them cancelled, (or in some countries jailed), for their antiaryanism? Wouldn't that be silly?

Then again, maybe that comparison doesn't work. After all, to see Jews as your equals is antisemitic: https://archive.ph/InK8h

The claim that Jews control or manipulate governments has been an antisemitic claim going back hundreds of years in multiple different variations. So, even if semetic does not equal Jew does not equal Zionist, any claim that one or the other controls a government requires some substance. Otherwise, it fits one of the most recognized template of antisemitic false claims.

The Israeli government does support Zionism and it does have quite a lot of influence with western governments. In the US, Israeli-tied special interest groups donate significant sums of money to our politicians who then vote in ways that benefit Israel. I don't think it's fair to say "Jews control the world" and I can certainly understand the sensitivity of that statement but it's not wrong to say that Israel has significant influence over the foreign policy of a world superpower.

That isn’t the claim that was made, though… unless you conflate Zionists in government outside Israel (claim actually made) with Jews in governments outside Israel (claim not actually made), thereby making my point. And it’s a conflation that Mike Huckabee — as just one trivial example — puts the lie to.

Observing that AIPAC both exists and has significant influence over American politics — especially the side of American politics that started an illegal and unjust war with Iran absent a legitimate casus belli — isn’t the same thing as putting on the tinfoil beret and screaming about the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and hasn’t been for quite a while.

It’s also important to remember that some of the most virulently antisemitic (meaning anti-Jewish) people alive are now, and long have been, actively Zionist precisely simply because they believe that restoring Jewish control over Israel will bring about the Christian-centric apocalypse of whomever claimed to be John of Patmos and thus delivery into eternal conscious torment any and every Jew that didn’t convert before the [entirely fictitious] Rapture.

That’s the fatal problem with equating Zionism and antisemitism in the first place… nothing stops someone from being rabidly both simultaneously.

And that’s all before we get to the nuance of there being plenty of Zionist-identifying Jews who are dead set against the specific form and flavor of Zionism currently controlling the Knesset.

> assuming there are Zionists everywhere is borderline antisemitic

It’s more just basic conspiracy theorizing. Assuming there is a secret group in charge of world affairs is a lot more comforting than facing the reality that we’re careening towards political anarchy on multiple continents. I don’t think one need be anti-Semitic to subscribe to that system.

> Assuming there is a secret group in charge of world affairs

Ah and it just so happens to be the Jews again, gee what a shocker never heard that before. And no , not antisemitic at all!

> it just so happens to be the Jews again

It’s 2026, every group is secretly in charge to someone. The Russians, the deep state, the Indians [1]. It’s a chaotic world and even the brightest among us are struggling to thread a coherent narrative about it. That leaves lots of room for the less bright to do their thing.

[1] https://m.economictimes.com/news/international/global-trends...

No. I don't deny other groups could get attacked sometimes or have something vile said about them, but it's not at the same scale and geographic spread the Jews are having it.

> how American authorities did not do much about "antifa"

What are you talking about, antifa has been a Trump bugbear since his first term.

A/I has been getting its shit seized since 2004 [1]. It started working with GazaWeb around 2024 [2]. It looks more like its PKK work got it in trouble [3].

Given the number of anti-left and anti-European power centers in the White House right now, it’s silly to jump to one’s pet conclusion when it comes to any Europe policy.

[1] https://www.anarchistnews.org/content/autisticiinventati-pre...

[2] https://archive.org/wayback/available?url=gazaweb.noblogs.or...

[3] https://www.anarchistnews.org/content/autisticiinventati-pre...

>To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize

I guess we're ruled by disabled people and our colleagues babies?

I'm ruled by my wife's weight

Pretty sure the police won't come after you for criticizing disabled people or your colleagues' babies.

> Pretty sure the police won't come after you for criticizing disabled people or your colleagues' babies

Literally protected categories! No, criticism won’t get the cops after you in America. But also, no, criticizing Israel in America is commonplace and not really prosecuted. (The courts ruled the student stuff was illegal.)

You are being pretty sleazy about what protected categories mean, it does not mean that you will get prosecuted for criticizing it.

Those crazy libertarians and weird urbanists that criticized disabled parking spots, have not been shoved in the back of an unmarked van for writing about it in small magazines.

Yet when students write against zionist genocide in small college magazines they get threatened, and shoved in unmarked vans. No need for dishonesty.

> it does not mean that you will get prosecuted for criticizing it

Most people criticizing Israel are not being prosecuted.

> when students write against zionist genocide in small college magazines they get threatened, and shoved in unmarked vans. No need for dishonesty

Dishonesty is ignoring that those actions were halted by the courts.

You can’t criticize whoever rule over you =/= everyone you can’t criticize is ruling over you.

The quote is saying the second thing. But you are definitely allowed to criticize disabled people.

Really? go do it at work then

I'm pretty sure your boss is allowed to fire you if you are an asshole at work.

This is a neo-nazi maxim. It sounds reasonable until you realize that the people who say this are hoping you'll arrive at an antisemitic answer. Yes, criticizing "jews" broadly is going to get you a negative reaction. No, that does not mean that "jews rule over you". You're not going to get a great response saying the n-word either, but that doesn't mean Black people are your oppressors.

Same kind of drivel as "there's nothing wrong with defending your own people", until you realize that "your own people" = "the racial majority" and "defending" = "defending against other races". Take a moment to think about what you're saying and why people say it. These aren't universal truths; it only takes a moment to find a counterexample that should prove to you that these aren't worthy of being guiding beliefs.

Anyone living by these kinds of figures of speech isn't a critical thinker, which is pretty much why they exist. Authoritarians benefit when you don't think too hard about how things work.

It is reasonable, I don't care who said it. There's no law in the US against saying the N word, but we have anti-BDS laws.

> but we have anti-BDS laws

And yet criticizing Israel is in the political mainstream in multiple cities…

I’d honestly say it’s more risky to criticize Hamas in some New York circles than it is Israel.

There's nowhere in the entire country you'd face legal consequences for criticizing Hamas. In the UK, maybe, depending how you do it (someone was arrested for posting "fuck Palestine and fuck Hamas").

Non-citizen students were also deported from the US for criticizing Israel. Courts later ruled this unconstitutional since the 1A still applies to them, but it was too late for those students.

> nowhere in the entire country you'd face legal consequences for criticizing Hamas

> Courts later ruled this unconstitutional

Those students faced practical consequences. There are plenty of places in America where expressing any doubts about the moral superiority of Palestinians over Israelis (note: I’m intentionally referring to the people) could get you isolated to the point of facing real consequences. Pretending this isn’t a polarizing debate across the political spectrum is a bit strange.

It's a legal consequence. This isn't like when customers or corps stop doing business with someone, our government took away visas and deported them.

And it's still not even that polarizing. Both major parties are still pro-Israel. This is only barely starting to change. And in the few cities where Israel is unpopular, there are plenty of openly Zionist businesses.

> Both major parties are still pro-Israel. This is only barely starting to change

Until recently, American voters were broadly pro-Israel.

> in the few cities where Israel is unpopular, there are plenty of openly Zionist businesses

Same for pro-Palestinian ones. That’s healthy.

Conflating every illegal thing Trump has tried to do with the status quo is internally inconsistent.

If you want to focus on the status quo, it was anti-BDS laws. This is the most they can do thanks to the 1A, and it still manages to be exceptional and shouldn't really be legal. Netherlands and much of Europe have no 1A equivalent, they'll just fine or jail people.

> Netherlands and much of Europe have no 1A equivalent, they'll just fine or jail people

For lots of stuff including Islamophobia.

This forced victimhood mentality among activists does real damage to the pro-Palestinian cause. If you’re advocating for something, the advocacy should not dwarf the cause.

They do it for all sorts of "hate speech" as it may offend locals, but Israel is usually the one country they can't criticize. Or at least the threshold is very different from criticizing any other country.

Also, I don't particularly care about Palestine as a country. Frankly it's insulting and also unwise how those protestors will wave any flag except our own.

That is a very recent change, one that is only true because of the Gaza genocide. Before the Gaza genocide criticizing Israel would be your political doom. So much so there is even a compilation of John Steward stating this fact.

The city of Reykjavík, Iceland, tried to boycott Israel back in 2015 but had to abandon the attempt because of the political backlash. In the 10 years since we can clearly see how justified those attempts were.

Even Democrats fully supported the Gaza war. Seems it really took Trump starting an unpopular, losing war against Iran and openly saying Israel told him to do it.

> Democrats fully supported the Gaza war

Americans were broadly pro-Israel after October 7. We probably would have remained so if Netanyahu hadn’t showed his hand so clearly.

Do you know why that is the case? Its because calling a war a genocide is basically extremist propaganda. It isn't a charge based in fact.

HAMAS uses child soldiers, then when they inevitable get killed claim that X number of children were killed in the war. HAMAS doesn't use uniforms so they can claim when their fighters die that a civilian was killed. These things are warcrimes exactly because it creates such confusion and because it increases the chance that actual civilians will get killed.

The people who make such charges are absolutely doing it to create the environment where they can commit atrocities. HAMAS publicly admits such things. Additionally, most of the images and videos from Gaza that got people upset in 2024 were generated by LLMs. It was pretty obvious too. Plenty of images with the wrong number of fingers or limbs were posted around that time. That's why such speech gets treated the way it does, not because of some sort of grand conspiracy.

PS Nobody debates the finer points of fascist public policy. The things people don't like are about vilifying a group of people and then creating a "final solution". Being part of a propaganda effort to do it again isn't a great look. That's why such speech is treated how it is.

I wouldn't call the Gaza war a genocide exactly, but they were in a situation where they lose their homes either way. West Bank Palestinians chose the more peaceful route and are still getting pushed out, as it's been for decades.

The thing I care about more is the US and other western countries fund this to our own detriment. We're now all-in on the Iran war, even threw Ukraine under the bus for it. Yes there's a conspiracy in plain sight like Trump's transaction with the Adelsons, or everyone at least knows about AIPAC.

It is a genocide. Literally everyone that studies genocide says so, every humanitarian organizations says so, several government say so, and eventually the International Court of Justice will say so.

Also, your parent is engaging in some serious genocide denial, and is generally being a racist against Palestinians. I hope they will soon be banned from HN. A tech forum should not be used to spread hate speech like your parent is.

The term genocide is a bit grammatically fucked. Every other “cide” denotes the commission of the crime. Attempted homicide is categorically distinct from homicide per se.

For practical reasons, however, we call attempted extermination genocide, which I think confuses people. (It also brings up all the mens rea problems that plague any prosecution of attempted and ongoing crimes.)

I wouldn’t conclude someone is a denialist or racist or hate speaker just because they hesitate to call something a genocide. (I genuinely don’t know what that word means anymore apart from throwing up my hands and saying it’s whatever a clique of humanitarian organizations say it means.)

I don‘t think you nor mahboi is a genocide denier just because you put a different meaning to the term then most people. If I would then I would have to call the tribunal tasked with pressing charges for the Cambodian genocide genocide deniers (they were not) just because they failed to press charges for an obvious genocide.

Being a genocide denier means that you deny the atrocities behind said genocide and that is what hunterpayne and nailer (your sibling thread) are doing. They are genocide deniers. They are spreading conspiracy theories and propaganda denying the atrocities (e.g. by claiming that pictures of atrocities were generated by AI or the the population of Gaza has not suffered as a result of the genocide). This is genocide denial, and it is hate speech, and it is anti-Palestinian racism.

>Every other “cide” denotes the commission of the crime

No, it doesn't; it's a Latin suffix meaning "to kill". While we may have codified the word "homicide" into law, this doesn't redefine the word to mean anything other than "one person killing another".

Genocide means killing focused on an ethnic group. Israel has plainly stated that this is their goal with Palestinians. This is a genocide in every way that matters.

Yeah, homicide is the act, and it's also a crime, and it could be attempted.

Israel's stated goal is to push all the Palestinians out of Gaza and West Bank. Several orgs consider this genocide because it's a way to destroy the culture. I don't agree because of the confusion we've already seen it create. Genocide before meant killing off an ethnic group. We already had a term for what Israel is doing, ethnic cleansing. It's inexcusable either way.

Language doesn't work like that. If it did homophobia would mean fear, and it doesn't. You can't discover the meaning of a word by taking it apart into it's Latin roots.

Here is what Wikipedia has to say about it:

Genocide is the partial or total destruction of a human group,[a] committed intentionally. The popular view conceives of genocide as the large-scale killing of individuals, but in scholarly and legal fields, genocide occurs when the group itself is targeted. Acts of genocide include killing as well as non-lethal acts such as preventing reproduction among the group, the forcible transfer of children to another group, and cultural genocide.

The genocide is a racist conspiracy theory. The population of Gaza has barely decreased. You are attempting to reframe the word genocide in a way that would include all combat because you want to accuse Jewish people of a false crime.

That only happens if you are very selective with the dates you choose. This is no different than white supremacists saying the Holocaust did not happen because technically the jewish poplation grew.

Its dishonest.

Its disgusting.

Its a stain on judaism, killing more than 20 000 children intentionally, and having snipers killing babies on their mothers arms.

That is the "racist conspiracy theory", and is enacted by a bunch of people that do not deserve to call themselves jewish because they truly do not understand the sacred scriptures.

No, only the genocide you made up shows the population continuing to increase, compared to Jewish.Rawandan/Ukrainan genocide, regardless of the dates you chose:

https://imgur.com/a/zQyyGQh

> having snipers killing babies on their mothers arms.

This is laughable, particularly when the war in Gaza comes as a response to Hamas actually killing babies and openly celebrating it in the case of the Bibas twins. Maybe it was a mistake to engage. Sorry Dan.

This is just dishonest weaselly and sleazy. Most experts agree this is a genocide even if it was not the evidence is clear. From: https://resourcecentre.savethechildren.net/document/tortured... "“Tortured”: The Escalating Abuse of Palestinian Children in Israeli Military Detention

"the escalating abuse of Palestinian children in Israeli military detention, highlighting widespread violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. "

Drawing on research involving detained children, caregivers, social workers, and lawyers, the brief documents severe physical, psychological, and sexual abuse, including torture, solitary confinement, deprivation of food and medical care, and denial of legal protections.

No one is vilifying a group of people more than you are.

You prefer to say "HAMAS uses child soldiers" instead of telling the truth which is, if a bunch of khazars from Eastern Europe, if a bunch of guys from Poland, if a bunch of guys from Pennsylvania, came to your home, burned it, raped your little sister, and killed your parents how would you act ? Wouldn't you enlist in a cause against it ? Were the 16 year old guys fighting for George Washington child soldiers or do you offer some more nuance to them ? Were the child saboteurs that acted against nazis also "child soldiers" ?

The truth is that Israelis are mostly a stain on judaism and make me ashamed of being jewish. They do not know my laws, they do not respect my scripture and they are simply evil.

"The people who make such charges are absolutely doing it to create the environment where they can commit atrocities." The ones commiting atrocities are Zionists, lmao you can use google maps and check by yourself dude.

"HAMAS publicly admits such things.", in the past at least you could have been a coward and shield on the fact Zionists did not admit it publicly. However you can fucking go to Ben Gavir's twitter and see he admits to even worse crimes.

"That's why such speech is treated how it is." No it is treated that way because zionists are cowards that were never taught to face the consequences of their actions, and want to blame antisemitism on everyone, except themselves, when they have skinned judaism and want to use its corpse as costume.

The whole world does not revolve around Zionism

It shouldn't revolve around Zionism, but more and more it's clear that if you oppose Israeli military offensives as a Westerner, the powers that be will brand you a terrorist and respond as if you were a threat.

A/I is not a terrorist organization, and they only got branded as such when operatives started taking direct action in response to the Genocide that Israel is committing presently. The cited "terrorist" actions so far have been spray-painting military property with anti-genocide messages: Criminal vandalism, sure. But absolutely not terrorism!

The government designation of A/I as a terrorist organization is https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20... and I have failed to notice anything about Israel, just your standard left-wing anarchy.

state.gov is not a reliable source, naturally they won’t say the truth or even their actual intention or reasoning. Recall the DHS has made up lies and deepfakes about just about every victim killed by ICE on camera.

I actually don't recall any deepfakes by DHS but please enlighten me.

>I have failed to notice anything about Israel

Then you linked to a state.gov document that lists numerous anti-Israel and pro-Palestine activist groups used as justification for a terrorist designation.

Did you even bother to read this document, or did you just CTRL+F "Israel" and miss all the times Palestine was mentioned?

Not sure why you're hyper-focusing on that one section and deciding that that was the motivation for the designation when there are plenty of other bad stuff happening there that more than justifies it. Besides the fact that many of those groups do indeed support terrorism.

Honest to God: I'm this close to believing some conspiracy theories...

That would be like when Google refused to take on military contracts with the US, but then they bent over backwards to do them with Israel. This is also when they changed a ton of internal policies to control employee expression, which started even before those interns broke into TK's office.

But honestly, the A/I situation doesn't look like that. Trump administration has been going after regular Antifa orgs for a long time.

If you remove the paywall and translate it's the A/I group being shut down https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/20...

The Dutch police imaged the drive, gave it to the Americans and gave the server back to XS4ALL which itself appears to have shutdown too I think

> The Dutch police imaged the drive, gave it to the Americans and gave the server back to XS4ALL which itself appears to have shutdown too I think

Xs4all was owned by KPN, but was an independent daughter company. They got merged fully merged with KPN a little less than ten years ago. The article mentions DC1 is a successor of Xs4all's DC.

If this server is Freeteam (and it probably is) then this server has been used for various left-wing activism collectives, and got confiscated by Dutch police various times throughout the years. For example, a death threat to Geert Wilders by some troll (server didn't log, as it intentionally never logged). The data was encrypted at rest, but you know how that goes. Everyone and their mother had shell access to Freeteam. (I'm someone's mother.)

A/I volunteers shutdown all their servers themselves because running an org which is sanctioned by USA as a terrorist organization isn't doable. This was one of the few servers which wasn't yet dissolved.

A/I? You mean S/I, right?

No… definitely not. No one who is demonstrably sane means that.

https://archive.ph/ZIugB

https://wallhop.io/https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2026/10/14/poli...

A/I was filled with calls for violence and direct threats. This is a good thing.

Besides, Parler had the same fate and was forced to change their infrastructure. Instead of the government, it was big tech colluding with the Biden administration.

I thought this was a good thing, according to all of the articles and comments I saw shortly after on HN.

How much more on the nose can you be than being anti-antifascist? It is obvious the double negative cancels out.

To all the Americans who think authoritarianism is something that happens elsewhere and that they would've stood up and stopped it: What are you waiting for?

> antifascist

Antifascist simply means “anti fascist” in the same way “make america great again” simply means “make America great again”.

Sometimes the name a Group picks for itself doesn’t match it’s actual behaviour. Love, the democratic peoples Republic of Korea.

Anti fascist means anti fascist, it means people who oppose and fight against fascism. There is no other meaning to that name. In this case, the name actually describes the movement (note movement; not a group) because they oppose and fight against fascists.

Anti Anti-fascists may not be fascist, however they oppose the people who oppose and fight against fascism for one reason or another.

“Having read your comment, the given examples do not apply to me only to them. I have provided zero evidence to support my own position or refute the comment I am replying to”

So perhaps you could tell us what anti fascists really want, if you don't think it's being against fascism? You haven't provided any evidence either.

Is there really a sovereign country in Europe that runs its own shit and is not subservient to Uncle Sam?

Confisquates?

> Confisquates?

Confiscates / seized. Pretty sure a french speaking poster mistranslated. It's "confisquer" in french.

Nope, am Dutch, just can't spell, oops

Ah, sorry for assuming, I figured it was safe guess based on my limited French. It was a wrong guess.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com