In Belgium, until proven otherwise, it is illegal to stab the throats of fellow citizens. However, it seems to be legal to publicly declare that you “want to stick a sharp knife in the throat of every Jew.” Welcome to the astonishing Brusselmans affair, named after the Flemish writer who called for the murder of Jews in a widely circulated weekly newspaper, without causing any scandal, and before being acquitted by the courts. Rafaël Amselem’s investigation—the first part of which we are publishing this week—explores the legal intricacies and Flemish cultural context in which such statements can pass as mere personal opinion and be covered by freedom of expression. While this case reveals a specifically Belgian unease with antisemitism and its anti-Zionist expressions, it also illustrates the aporias of an unlimited conception of freedom of expression, incapable of acknowledging the violence inherent in verbal attacks against minorities.
At a time when the war between Israel and Iran seems to have revived an old stereotype in part of Western public opinion—that of the Jew who must be relied upon to carry the banner of the struggle for universal justice and who, once again, has disappointed the proponents of this fantasy—a question that is both naive and provocative seems worth raising: “Why should Jews be useful?” Keith Kahn-Harris, the British author of Everyday Jews: Why the Jewish People Are Not Who You Think They Are [Icon Book, 2025] takes up the question this week and challenges our assumptions on the subject. The question, in fact, is addressed as much to Jews as to non-Jews, since it deals with the relationship that has become established between Jews and the world in our modern era. The irony, then, poorly conceals the seriousness of what is being raised: why do Jews seem condemned to occupy the center of public debate, and what prevents them from leading perfectly mundane and futile lives?
Danny Trom’s story “Holy Week on Xanax” provoked numerous reactions, some more alarmed than others, regarding the lucidity of our dear sociologist. Paying close attention to our readers’ feedback, we pored over the abundant correspondence. The critique by anthropologist and historian Leopoldo Iribarren stood out, and the editorial team decided to publish his right of reply. Having swapped Xanax for a potential bottle of sherry, Danny Trom spent part of his weekend responding to his colleague. L’chaim!
