Geert Wilders, the polarizing leader of the Dutch Party for Freedom (PVV), has once again taken to social media to proclaim his unwavering support for Israel, declaring that the Jewish state fights not only for its own survival but for the West as a whole. In a recent tweet, Wilders reiterated his belief that Israel is the “West’s first line of defense,” a sentiment he has echoed for years, rooted in his formative experiences living on an Israeli moshav in the 1980s. Yet, this fervent pro-Israel stance stands in stark contrast to the sentiments of the Dutch public, with a Pew Research survey indicating that 78% of Dutch citizens hold unfavorable views toward Israel. This disconnect raises questions about Wilders’ motivations and whether his advocacy for Israel reflects a genuine ideological commitment or a calculated alignment with a foreign state’s interests, positioning him as a de facto “man of Israel” in Dutch politics.
Wilders’ affinity for Israel is no secret. His political career is peppered with actions and statements that place Israel at the forefront of his worldview. From his youth volunteering at Moshav Tomer in the West Bank to his recent whirlwind visit to Israel in December 2024—where he met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and toured settlements—Wilders has consistently championed Israel’s cause. His social media is a gallery of pro-Israel rhetoric, with posts celebrating Israeli military actions against Hamas and Hezbollah, condemning international criticism of Israel, and even advocating for the Dutch embassy’s relocation to Jerusalem. In one post, he praised Netanyahu’s efforts, claiming they surpassed the European Union’s entire counter-terrorism record over decades. This rhetoric aligns with his broader narrative that Israel’s fight against “radical Islamic values” mirrors his own domestic agenda to “de-Islamize” the Netherlands.
However, this ardent support comes at a time when Dutch public opinion, as revealed by Pew Research, shows a strong anti-Israel sentiment, with 78% of respondents expressing disapproval of Israel’s policies or actions. This figure likely reflects growing unease with Israel’s military operations in Gaza and the West Bank, particularly following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack and the subsequent war, which has drawn global scrutiny for its humanitarian toll. The Dutch, historically known for their progressive and tolerant outlook, appear increasingly critical of Israel’s approach, aligning with broader European trends of sympathy for Palestinian causes. Wilders’ vocal defense of Israel, including his dismissal of the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrants against Israeli leaders as “madness,” places him at odds with this mainstream sentiment.
Critics argue that Wilders’ pro-Israel stance is less about Dutch interests and more about leveraging Israel’s geopolitical struggles to bolster his populist, anti-immigrant platform. His rhetoric often conflates support for Israel with opposition to Muslim immigration, painting both as battles in a broader clash of civilizations. In a 2010 speech in Tel Aviv, he declared, “Israel is fighting our war,” suggesting that Israel’s conflicts with groups like Hamas are a proxy for Europe’s struggles with its Muslim populations. This framing resonates with his base but alienates the broader Dutch public, who see little direct connection between Israel’s conflicts and domestic issues like housing or economic stability. By prioritizing Israel’s narrative, Wilders risks appearing as a politician more invested in a foreign state’s agenda than in addressing the concerns of his constituents.
Wilders’ ties to Israel have even sparked investigations into his loyalty. In 2009–2010, the Dutch intelligence service AIVD probed his connections with Israeli officials, including meetings with figures like General Amos Gilad, amid concerns that these ties might influence his commitment to Dutch interests. While no charges were filed, the investigation underscores the perception that Wilders’ allegiance to Israel may transcend typical diplomatic support. His refusal to disclose funding sources for his PVV has fueled speculation about financial backing from pro-Israel groups, though no concrete evidence has emerged. This opacity only deepens suspicions that Wilders acts as a mouthpiece for Israeli interests in Europe.
Moreover, Wilders’ Israel advocacy often ignores the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which resonate with many Dutch citizens. His support for West Bank settlements and his suggestion that Palestinians should relocate to Jordan dismiss the aspirations of Palestinians and clash with the Netherlands’ official stance, which favors a two-state solution. This position has drawn criticism even from within the Dutch Jewish community, with figures like Esther Voet noting that most Dutch Jews support a two-state approach, not Wilders’ one-state vision. His actions, such as meeting settler leaders during his 2024 Israel visit, prompted Dutch Foreign Minister Caspar Veldkamp to warn that such moves violate coalition agreements, further highlighting Wilders’ divergence from national consensus.
Wilders’ defenders, however, argue that his support for Israel is a principled stand against global antisemitism and radical Islam, issues he believes threaten both Israel and the West. His Jewish supporters, including some Dutch Jews and pro-Israel outlets like Joods.nl, see his victory in the 2023 elections as a bulwark against rising antisemitic incidents, particularly after the October 7 attack. They point to his condemnation of violence against Israeli soccer fans in Amsterdam in November 2024, which he labeled a “pogrom,” as evidence of his commitment to Jewish safety. Yet, even here, his rhetoric—blaming “Moroccans” and calling for deportations—stirs division, with Jewish leaders like Itay Garmy cautioning that such inflammatory language risks isolating Jewish communities further.
In a country where 78% of the population views Israel unfavorably, Wilders’ relentless pro-Israel advocacy positions him as an outlier, seemingly more aligned with Jerusalem’s right-wing government than with The Hague’s electorate. His actions suggest a politician who sees himself as a warrior for Israel’s cause, even at the cost of political capital at home. While he frames this as a defense of Western values, the gap between his rhetoric and Dutch public sentiment raises questions about whose interests he truly serves. Is Wilders a Dutch patriot fighting for his vision of the West, or a man of Israel, championing a foreign state’s battles over his own nation’s priorities? The answer lies in the tension between his ideology and the will of the people he claims to represent.
