Peter Malcontent: ‘My biggest concern is that nothing will change’

The Who’s new collector’s box is stacked against a cupboard in Peter Malcontent’s living room in Utrecht. This music fan has been listening to Won’t Get Fooled Again, one of his favourite hits from the 1970s, a lot lately.

“That song says that you shouldn’t be fooled or let yourself be carried away by stories people tell. And that’s what I always try to convey in my lectures and TV appearances.”

The International Relations teacher has emerged as a leading commentator on the situation in the Middle East ever since his girlfriend woke him on October 7 saying that something was going on in Gaza and he already had three missed calls from journalists.

That same evening, he was one of the first experts to contextualize the images of the attacks perpetrated by Hamas attacks on TV. “I had to figure out what the hell had happened pretty quickly because, to be honest, I was totally surprised. That was supposed to be impossible. Like most scholars, I had assumed that Hamas was transforming from a militant organisation to a more moderate one. But we had been fooled, apparently.”

Malcontent is not entirely surprised by the fact he’s been approached by basically all news editors in the Netherlands. “The pool of Dutch scientists who can talk about Israel and Palestine without too much preparation is not that large. Besides, I have years of acting experience, so I can avoid stumbling over my words or saying ‘uhm’ all the time. But, most of all, I really enjoy doing it. The teacher in me often beats the researcher.”

The media storm has now subsided somewhat, but he must admit he has mixed feelings about all the attention he’s getting. “It’s as if the scientist Peter Malcontent is having his finest hour because so many people are suffering. But I hope to make a positive contribution by continuing to provide calm and clear information to the Dutch public.”

As a scientist, what is your role at a TV studio?
“That’s something I’ve thought about. A scientist’s role must be different from that of eyewitnesses or representatives of interest groups, for example. My main role is to try to explain and analyse everything as factually as possible. I want to give context without drawing conclusions that can’t be based on facts. Therefore, a TV appearance is not that different from a lecture. You’re trying to give people tools so that they can come to well-founded opinions and conclusions for themselves, blocking out all the noise.

“Besides, I’m a historian. This means I don’t just look at the issues of the day, I also take a step back. Were there any clues in the past for what is happening today? That is what my explanation should focus on, which is also in line with how my department, History of International Relations, works. Take my colleague Beatrice de Graaf, who is often asked to comment on topics such as contemporary terrorism in the media.

“Perhaps my most fruitful moment was when a former student of mine called. He works at the foreign affairs department of the Dutch public broadcaster NOS. He saw that many of his colleagues lacked background information about the conflict, so he asked me if I was interested in having lunch with them. But then everyone wanted to join that lunch, there was not a single occupied desk around. That’s when I thought: ‘My work is quite useful now.’”

This conflict is incredibly polarised and emotions are running high. Is there a right way to interpret the information for others?
“I knew that I would be despised by some as that happened in 2018 as well, when I published a book about the relationship between the Netherlands, Israel and Palestine. A critic, writing for NRC’s book supplement, dismissed me as an Israel denier, an euphemistic way to call someone an antisemite in the Netherlands. It can’t get any worse than that. 

“It was all based on distortions and wrong assumptions. In the end, the newspaper corrected the article, but the damage had already been done. The book didn’t sell very well and the suspicions stuck with me for a while. I just had to bite the bullet.

“But, at the end of the day, you can never satisfy those with more radical views. And there are radicals on both sides. I soon found out that the pro-Palestine side criticised me a lot too. So, I concluded that I must be doing something right. Since then, I don’t worry much about critics anymore.”

Not at all? What kind of responses do you get after your TV appearances?
“I hardly ever look at Twitter. My friends advised me not to do it, so I haven’t checked it these past few months. I also get about seven or eight e-mails a week. Fortunately, they3 never call.

“Most e-mails are from people whose opinion is pro-Israel. Some I just delete right away. On one occasion, I threatened to forward an e-mail to UU’s Executive Board. It was from someone who basically told me to kill myself. I don’t really lose sleep over these messages, but I think that one crossed the line. That person apologized afterwards, which I thought was quite funny.”

“I try to answer whenever I get the slightest impression that we can start a conversation. People don’t usually expect to get an answer at all, so they are taken aback. But they appreciate me taking the trouble to answer their comments. Sometimes there is someone who honestly admits that my answer prompted them to reflect on the subject.”

Do you sense any tension in the classroom?
“People are very interested in the subject. Three weeks ago, I started ministering my Master’s course again. I was told that some students even offered others money for a spot. That’s when I decided to give a lecture for all students.

“I was a bit surprised to see virtually no problems during lectures. I always try to contextualise things in advance, saying what we will talk about and how we will talk about it. I tell them that we will study not one but several perspectives on the conflict, both Israeli and Palestinian, both Western and non-Western. Otherwise, we wouldn’t be able to understand the conflict. If we agree in advance to be professionals, not to shout at each other, and try to listen to each other, things tend to go well.

“I confirmed that when I was invited by the Studium Generale of Erasmus University in Rotterdam to give a lecture on the history of the conflict. There were a lot of critical students in the room who had great difficulty with Israel’s actions in Gaza. But, because the organisation was good, it was a great evening in the end, followed by a debate without any discord. People really listened to each other.”

Many universities, including UU, chose to stay neutral regarding this conflict. What do you think about that?
“I don’t think Executive Boards should propagate political views anyway. I wouldn't know why they should. For that reason, I didn’t think it was convenient for UU’s Executive board to make statements about the invasion of Ukraine. I believe that the board itself realises that now. After all, where does it end? Terrible massacres are taking place in Darfur once again. Should UU’s Executive Board comment on that too?

“That said, I do believe that UU employees should be allowed to speak out individually. In my view, one of the characteristics of an academic community is having room for different opinions and positions, as long as they are well-founded.”

Why does the situation in Israel and the Palestinian territories always strike such a sensitive chord in the Netherlands?
“Well, you have to put things in perspective. It strikes a chord in the Hague, at the political level. From the second half of the 1970s onwards, both left-wing and right-wing parties took up their positions. The shadow cast by the Shoah is an important factor influencing this, more so than in other countries. This is a country that regrets the fact that so many Dutch people turned a blind eye to the persecution of the Jews.

“When it comes to Dutch society, the contrast between Israel and Palestine never played a major role. Studies invariably show that more than half of the Dutch population has no idea what to think about it. The groups expressing support for one side or the other side are quite small. That hasn’t changed.

“Over the years, the Dutch have become more critical of Israel, but that does not necessarily mean that there is more support for the Palestinians. For most Dutch people, the Middle East is a distant concern anyway and they identify more easily with the Western-looking leaders of Israel.

“Of course, things are different for new Dutch citizens with roots in Arab countries. You see them in demonstrations often now. But those are not very large gatherings. The student demonstrations in Utrecht are also relatively small.”

Do you think the sudden outburst of the conflict had an impact on the Dutch elections? 
“No, I think that influence is negligible. Nevertheless, I was very unhappy with the initial attitude of the Dutch government. They said they were aware of vulnerabilities in society and the need to de-escalate. But all I saw was an escalation. 

“In the first week, Prime Minister Mark Rutte only had eyes for the Israeli victims, while the number of victims on the Palestinian side was increasing rapidly. In addition, Israeli flags were hung on government buildings. This way, you are alienating people from each other and making dialogue impossible. Their tone softened a bit after a while, thankfully.”

Now we may have the most pro-Israel government ever.
“My biggest concern is that nothing is going to change. Since the Oslo Accords exploded in 2000, Israel has chosen a unilateral course: no more negotiations and, if necessary, keep things under tight control. We are now seeing the consequences of that policy.

“Within the EU, the Netherlands, together with Germany, has always been the pro-Israel engine, supported in recent years by new member states from Eastern Europe. These past few decades, right-wing parties have had a majority in the Dutch Parliament, almost without exception. Little attention was paid to policies that could put more pressure on Israel.

“Now the Netherlands seems to have opted for a government that will wholeheartedly support Netanyahu's doctrine of ‘you hit it and you eradicate it’. It’s hard to avoid suspecting some politicians of 'an orientalist view', let's put it that way. They think that the Arabs live by the sword and are highly emotional, so you can only stop any problems with them by force.”

We guess you're not going to Israel anytime soon...
“Haha, no. I have been studying the situation there since 2015, when I was asked to write a book about the Netherlands’ relationship with Israel and Palestine. At first, not going there was a conscious choice as my book focused on the Dutch perspective. I didn’t want to be clouded by the emotions I would feel when visiting a Palestinian refugee camp, for example. 

“After my book was published in 2018, I meant to go there every year. But something always came up. First, it was Covid, now it’s this war. However, there is a tsunami of images and writings available, so you don’t necessarily have to go there to be able to say something meaningful about the situation.”