Joël Rubinfeld is a founding member and president of the Belgian League Against Antisemitism and president of the Jewish Coalition for Kurdistan. He was president of the Coordinating Committee of Jewish Organizations in Belgium, vice-president of the European Jewish Congress, and co-chairman of the European Jewish Parliament.
- Read Part I: 'Israel, the Dreyfus of Nations'
- Read Part II: 'There Is a Serious Problem in My Country'
Canlorbe: In your view, is Trump's Board of Peace a viable alternative to the UN, one that could also put an end to the unfair, demonizing treatment of Israel?
Rubinfeld: When I look at the composition of the "Board of Peace," I am skeptical.
What is paradoxical is that the founding idea of the UN is fascinating: to bring everyone to the table and try to resolve conflicts through diplomacy. In principle, it is even admirable and carried promise.
In practice, however, the UN has become something quite different. Charles de Gaulle called it "the thingamajig"; I would add: "the antisemitic thingamajig." Today, the UN serves as the world's leading international sounding-board for contemporary antisemitism.
Why? Because the balance of power works against the ideal.
Take the example of the General Assembly. Of its 193 member states, a majority are dictatorships or authoritarian regimes. Although the General Assembly does not "make" law in the strict sense—its resolutions are not binding—it still gives a sense of the overall climate: one of structural hostility toward the Jewish state. As Abba Eban, Israel's foreign minister at the time, remarked in the 1970s: "If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions."
To return to the Board of Peace: in principle, yes, the idea is appealing. President Trump has said that he is not trying to replace the UN -- and most likely he is not, as that would completely abandon it to the dictatorships. He may be trying to make peace among countries that have a history of hostilities with both Israel and one another.
President Trump, however, may be making a fundamental mistake. He may believe that most people can be made into an ally through doing business. He does not seem to appreciate that this may not be true for countries that place religion as a priority, especially if they already have enough money through oil or are bent on global conquest, such as China
When one looks at the composition of the "Board of Peace"—with countries such as Turkey or Qatar—one thinks: this is not off to a good start. The risk is that it will reproduce the same problems as before. Now there is a boss—Trump—steering the whole thing. Fair enough. But he may not be involved forever. What happens after that?
If tomorrow the "Board of Peace" shifts to a system in which each country has equal weight, why would the whole operation not fall back into the same structural bias as the UN—the one that favors dictatorships and authoritarian regimes?
Sadly, this "Board of Peace" does not seem to solve the underlying problem we face at the UN: it risks merely shifting it elsewhere without correcting it.
Canlorbe: How do you assess American policy regarding Kurdistan, the UN and Palestinians?
Rubinfeld: Since the Lausanne Conference in 1923, nations have betrayed the Kurds again and again. The result is that the Kurdish people—the largest stateless people in the world—now number some 40 million, strangers on their own land. Yet despite being fragmented across four countries—Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran—they remain one people, with a shared history, culture, and identity.
What strikes me is the contrast with the Palestinian cause, which mobilizes international opinion so feverishly. The Kurds have existed as a people since time immemorial, yet their legitimate aspiration to self-determination attracts virtually no attention and the free world remains unmoved.
The Kurds are a valiant people who have repeatedly stood by the West. This was evident in the role of the Peshmerga in the fight against the Islamic State. Whenever they were called upon, they answered. Then, every time the crisis had passed, they were abandoned again to their fate.
In that respect, Trump is doing nothing different from his predecessors: no one cares about the Kurds unless they are needed.
Take the example of the 2017 referendum in Iraqi Kurdistan: 92.7% of voters cast their ballots in favor of independence. Yet only one country publicly backed the result: Israel. In Erbil, Israeli flags could be seen in the streets—not burned but proudly waved. In the eyes of many Kurds, Israel embodies what they aspire to become: people, against all odds, who are finally masters of their own destiny.
I hope that one day the dream of a free Kurdistan will come true. If it does, it will not emerge by consensus, but probably in the wake of regional chaos.
In the meantime, since the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire, the Kurds have been paying the price of the international community's broken promises for more than a century.
Canlorbe: Should the U.S.-Israel military operation have been carried out with a view to liberating Iran? Would such a goal be beneficial for Iran, for Israel, and more generally for the world?
Rubinfeld: For 47 years, since the Khomeinist Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran has been the main destabilizing factor in the region—particularly in terms of support for terrorism. It is this regime that established the "Shiite crescent" to surround Israel and that the mullahs called the "Axis of Resistance": a constellation of militias and terrorist groups used by Iran as proxies: Hezbollah in Lebanon, Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria, Shiite militias in Iraq, the Houthis in Yemen, and Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza, Judea and Samaria. Already in 1979, Khomeini was calling for "Death to Israel," the "Little Satan," and "Death to America," the "Great Satan."
Under the Iranian presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who called Israel a "dead fish" and a "stinking corpse" to be "wiped" off the map, the regime became known for an even more rabid antisemitism. The international conference he organized in Tehran in 2006 brought together leading Holocaust deniers, including Robert Faurisson and David Duke, a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan. At official gatherings and during Friday prayers, "Death to Israel" and "Death to America" are still routinely chanted (here, here and here). Iran's late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei stated that "'Death to America' is not a slogan, it is a policy."
Apart from words, there are means. Iran has been seeking to develop nuclear weapons for more than 40 years. A signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Iran claims to be pursuing nuclear power for civilian purposes, but the level of enrichment, and the recent admission to US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff that Iran had enough enriched uranium for 11 nuclear bombs, inside of two weeks, tell a very different story. For civilian use, uranium enrichment is typically around 4%. Yet IAEA data and statements by the Iranian regime point to a current stockpile of more than 440 kilograms of uranium enriched to 60%. When the US negotiators repeatedly offered (here and here) to supply Iran with all the energy it would need for civilian use long-term and cost-free, Iran repeatedly declined. One would have to be incredibly naive to believe that Iran is not seeking to build nuclear weapons.
The joint Israeli-American military intervention was therefore necessary. It is a response to a genuine immediate existential threat—two weeks to a nuclear breakout are a clear and present danger. The Iranian population, massacred by the thousands—more than 40,000 in January alone—aspires to free itself from a regime that has ruthlessly oppressed it for nearly half a century. In Iran, it is crucial to note, the people are not the same as the regime. Senator John Fetterman (D-PA) has called Iran a "47-year-old war crime." Those who invoke international law to denounce the ongoing war against the regime of the mullahs are, in fact, pleading for the survival of a regime that has crushed its people for 47 years.
International law, a noble concept in itself, is today being perverted—serving as a shield for some of the worst executioners on the planet. Have the West's useful idiots of the Islamic Republic of Iran already forgotten the tens of thousands of unarmed Iranian citizens massacred by their own horrific government in just two days, on January 8 and 9? Men such as Spain's Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez, French politician Jean-Luc Mélenchon, and, in Belgium, Paul Magnette and Raoul Hedebouw belong to that old political tradition of moralizers whom history invariably consigns to oblivion.
There is another, deeper dimension: the relationship between the Jewish people and the Persian people, rooted in their histories.
We must go back 2,500 years -- to the conquest of the Kingdom of Judah by the Babylonians and the exile that followed. Persia defeated Babylon and allowed the Jews to return to their homeland and rebuild their Temple in Jerusalem, which had been destroyed fifty years earlier during the invasion. That memory has created a historical debt.
The names chosen by Israel for its military operations, both in last June's strikes and in the current war, the "lion" is given pride of place —"Operation Rising Lion" and "Operation Roaring Lion" – means of course the Lion of Judah, the emblem of one of the twelve tribes of Israel. The lion, however, is also a central symbol of the Persian people. It appeared on Iran's flag before being replaced after Khomeini's rise to power. It is precisely this historic emblem—the Lion and Sun—that is now being waved in the streets of Iran, as well as at gatherings of the Iranian diaspora—where Israeli and American flags can also be seen flying.
This sequence therefore transcends a mere military operation. It combines the urgency of the present—neutralizing the nuclear threat—with the echo of a 2,500-year-old bond.
One of the major differences with the Iraq War is that, here, there exists a credible alternative to the regime in place: Reza Pahlavi. His name is chanted in the streets of Iran. In Los Angeles, New York, London, Berlin, Paris, Brussels, and elsewhere, the same symbols recur: portraits of Reza Pahlavi and the "Lion and Sun" emblem.
Imagine the day the regime falls: Reza Pahlavi lands in Tehran on an American plane—echoing Khomeini's arrival there, 47 years earlier, on an Air France flight. The closing shot: Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu in Tehran, presiding over the reopening of the U.S. embassy and the inauguration of Israel's.
Yet the recent developments in the US–Israel–Iran war suggest that such an outcome is becoming increasingly distant.
Canlorbe: On February 16, the American ambassador to Belgium, Bill White, raised the issue of antisemitism in Belgium and denounced the prosecutions brought against two mohels from Antwerp, accused of performing circumcisions without being doctors. In your view, was the ambassador acting within his proper role?
Rubinfeld: What he said—even if it did not conform to diplomatic standards—was fully legitimate. It may not be enough to solve the problem, but at least Bill White had the moral clarity to name it. People speak of "interference," but sometimes the absence of interference amounts to a moral failure.
When you see Jewish graves desecrated, Jewish artists, intellectuals, athletes and businesses boycotted, incitement to violence against Jews, demonstrations where thousands chant for the destruction of the Jewish state or glorify the "martyrs" Sinwar and Nasrallah—and where leading political figures join these marches—you realize there is a serious problem in my country: a country where increasing numbers of Jews conceal their Star of David, remove mezuzahs from their doorways, hide their kippahs beneath hats, and change their names on apps such as Uber and on social media.
Let us return to the case of the circumcisers. In May 2025, Belgian police carried out raids on Jewish homes in Antwerp, targeting two rabbis who perform ritual circumcision. In Judaism, male circumcision is performed on the eighth day by a mohel, a practitioner rigorously trained in this three-thousand-year-old tradition. The reality is that circumcision performed by a mohel is the safest way to carry out the procedure—King Charles III, who was circumcised by Jacob Snowman, then the mohel to the British royal family, is a case in point.
In Belgium, to the best of my knowledge, there have never been any accidents during circumcisions performed by a mohel. The problem lies elsewhere—with the man who filed the complaint against them and branded them "butchers": the "rabbi" Moshe Friedman.
Friedman belongs to an ultra-Orthodox Jewish sect, the Neturei Karta, known for its radical anti-Zionism. For them, the State of Israel is an "imposture" that must be wiped off the map, as the restoration of the Jewish people to the Promised Land should be the work of the Messiah, not man—whether Theodor Herzl or David Ben-Gurion.
In 2006, Friedman took part in the Holocaust denial conference organized in Tehran. At that conference, he challenged the figure of six million Jewish victims, reducing it, falsely, to "about one million."
There are such things as Jewish antisemites – such as "rabbis" who claim that circumcisions performed by mohels have led to death or severe complications, the public tends to take such claims at face value — unaware that they are being deceived by closet antisemites.
A quick computer search turns up several cases of drowning deaths after the baptism of Christian children or adults — in the United States, Romania, Moldova, South Africa, and elsewhere. These are tragedies, but they have not called into question the practice of a two-thousand-year-old rite. No one has said: "From now on, baptisms must be performed by lifeguards," or "this sacrament should be taken away from priests." It is easy to see how absurd this would be.
What this dispute actually highlights is the disproportionate response of the Belgian judicial system when it comes to Jews.
On one side, on the basis of a complaint filed by an alleged antisemite, the judicial apparatus is set in motion: searches, the seizure of equipment, and a request for a list of children circumcised in recent years. One must fully grasp the repercussions of that act: the judicial authorities demand a list of Jewish children.
On the other side, when it comes to antisemitism — explicit, documented, undeniable — the response is most often inadequate or nonexistent. On October 7, 2024, exactly one year after the October 7 jihad, pro-Palestinian demonstration took place in Brussels, in the heart of the capital. From the stage, a speaker intoned in Arabic: "O Allah, burn the Jews" — and the crowd responded in unison, "Ameen." We filed a complaint with the Brussels public prosecutor's office, together with video evidence. To this day, there has been no response — not even an acknowledgment of receipt.
The absurd epilogue to this story is that, after denouncing these facts on Belgian and French television, I was summoned by the police after a complaint lodged by the organizer of that demonstration, who accused me of endangering him by describing the event as antisemitic.
Another time, a restaurateur put up a sign in his window reading: "Dogs welcome, Jews forbidden." The violation of Belgian anti-racism law is pretty clear-cut. Yet the Liège public prosecutor's office proposed mediation — which we refused — and then dropped the case two years later. In yet another case, a columnist at one of the country's leading Flemish weeklies wrote that he "felt like plunging a knife into the throat of every Jew [he] meets in the street." A complaint was filed, followed by an acquittal by the Ghent court. In still another case, when the leader of a political party made openly antisemitic remarks and defended Hamas, the complaint was dismissed by the Brussels public prosecutor's office.
One can discuss complex and nuanced cases, where intention and context may be debated. But when statements are as explicit as "Jews forbidden," "Burn the Jews," "I feel like plunging a knife into the throat of every Jew," or "Jews are real psychopaths, serial killers," a judge — even a novice — should, without question, condemn such remarks as violations of Belgium's 1981 law against racism and xenophobia.
That is where the contrast becomes unacceptable: a complaint filed by an antisemite triggers an investigation, while antisemitic acts and statements themselves go unpunished.
We are not in 1933. But there are echoes that recall the darker chapters of history: antisemitic agitation in the streets, attacks on religious practices, physical assaults on Jews, political and media incitement, boycotts of Jewish figures and businesses, the need for Jews to conceal their identity, and the failure of the justice system to protect them.
For all these reasons, I thank Ambassador White for shaking things up. This will not solve the problem of antisemitism in Belgium, but he deserves credit for bringing the issue into the spotlight.
In the Western world, over the past 25 years, only two countries have drawn millions into the streets to burn their flags and vilify them: Israel and the United States.
Ironically, that part of Western public opinion — the part that takes to the streets — echoes the very same themes as the Iranian regime: "Down with the Little Satan and the Great Satan."
When I see people joining the pack, it seems sad that the concept of "self-hatred," which one finds among certain Jews and Westerners, does not spare youths either — youths who may well end up in a "socialist" country that strips them of the liberties they appear to take so for granted.
This Marxist and Islamist indoctrination calls into question the future of Western civilization. As the author Jaime Semprun noted, "When the eco-citizen claims to raise the most disturbing question by asking 'What world are we going to leave to our children?' he avoids asking the other, truly disturbing question: 'To what children are we going to leave the world?'"
Grégoire Canlorbe, a journalist, currently lives in Paris. He has conducted interviews for journals such as Man and the Economy, founded by Nobel Prize-winning economist Ronald Coase, and think tanks such as Mises Institute and Gatestone Institute. Contact: gregoire.canlorbe@wanadoo.fr
