In its Terrorist Threat Assessment for the Netherlands 2024, the Dutch National Coordinator for Counterterrorism and Security (Nationaal Coördinator Terrorismebestrijding en Veiligheid, NCTV) gives relatively limited consideration to elements of the student protest movement that may carry implications for the democratic rule of law. This gap in emphasis becomes more striking when compared with the joint NCTV–General Intelligence and Security Service (Algemene Inlichtingen- en Veiligheidsdienst, AIVD) report on foreign state-sponsored interference, which explicitly identifies the consequences of intimidation as a threat to national security. 

In the Terrorist Threat Assessment 2024, the NCTV places strong emphasis on the potential for violence, noting that left-wing extremists played a significant role in mobilising supporters during university occupations and other protests, particularly those related to the war between Israel and Hamas. These protests were described as “on the whole peaceful,” but “in some cases escalated into violence”; however, this involvement has not, according to the report, resulted in an increased willingness to use violence among left-wing extremists. Meanwhile, although the NCTV acknowledges that the protests “could have an intimidating effect on Jewish students and teaching staff,” it treats intimidation more as an unintended consequence of the protest environment than as a deliberate tactic —let alone as a factor that could potentially undermine the democratic legal order.

This contrasts sharply with the conclusions drawn in the NCTV and AIVD’s joint report on foreign interference, which explicitly links intimidation to the erosion of the democratic rule of law and identifies it as a threat to national security. The report states that “repression (and the fear of it) leads to self-censorship,” undermining fundamental democratic freedoms such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly —freedoms the NCTV and AIVD themselves describe as essential to the functioning of a democratic society.

Yet in the context of the student protest movement, intimidation also appears to be more of a means than a passive byproduct. At the University of Amsterdam, protesters reportedly singled out a Jewish student who visited an encampment, immediately alerting others: “She is a Zionist, throw her out”. Similarly, at Leiden University, a Jewish student witnessing an anti-Israel demonstration at her campus was approached by a student — who knew she was Jewish — and was told to leave, accompanied by the chant, “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”. These incidents are not isolated. The slogan “Say it loud, say it clear, we don’t want no Zionists here,” has been heard at multiple student demonstrations, reflecting a pattern of exclusionary and intimidating rhetoric aimed at students who hold views that differ from those of the protest movement.

These patterns were documented more broadly in an October 2024 report by Amanda Kluveld and Eliyahu Sapir of Maastricht University, based on testimonies from Jewish and Israeli students and staff at twenty universities and colleges across the Netherlands. Nearly all respondents reported facing expressions of hatred, exclusion, and intimidation. In fact, feelings of insecurity, the researchers found, are directly linked to calls for, or encouragement of, social exclusion and intimidation resulting from the protest movements.

As a result, many Jewish and Israeli students and staff report changing their behavior, including staying home, withdrawing from courses, avoiding disclosure of their identities, or remaining silent during discussions about Israel in academic settings. These forms of self-censorship, particularly in relation to freedom of expression and driven by a sense of intimidation, closely resemble the dynamics the NCTV and AIVD highlight as concerning in the context of state-sponsored interference.

Furthermore, the broader student protest movement has actively sought to obstruct the freedom of assembly for individuals holding opposing viewpoints, a concern not addressed in the NCTV’s Terrorist Threat Assessment 2024. At the University of Amsterdam, events organised by Room for Discussion, a university platform that hosts interviews with professionals on current affairs, have repeatedly faced disruption and cancellation due to pressure and intimidation from protestors. While an interview with former Shell CEO Jeroen van der Veer was cancelled after online threats by activists, a conversation with NATO military officer Rob Bauer in March 2024 had to be relocated to a closed room after ongoing disruptions by student protestors chanting slogans such as “Free, free, Palestine” and “NATO, shame on you, blood on your hands”. 

These events appear to reflect a recurring mode of engagement by the student protest movement rather than isolated incidents. Just last month, ahead of a series of lectures by a pro-Israel speaker at Dutch universities, a lecturer at Radboud University publicly stated that he hoped “they [the pro-Israel speaker and crowd] get the welcome they deserve”, a remark that preceded protests outside the lecture hall and disruptions during the lecture itself. The following day, the student protest group Free Palestine Maastricht called on students, university staff, and local residents to boycott and demonstrate against a second lecture by the same speaker. Their call was followed by coordinated demonstrations and disruptions both inside and outside the venue, ultimately forcing the lecture to end prematurely.

Altogether, these developments suggest a discernible pattern in which the actions of student protest movements contribute to an atmosphere of intimidation, placing pressure on key democratic freedoms such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Given the NCTV and AIVD’s recognition of how intimidation undermines the democratic rule of law in other contexts — such as foreign interference — applying the same standard to assessments of domestic extremism would allow Dutch security services to more accurately identify and respond to the evolving threat landscape.