Halsema calls support for Hamas on Dam Square shocking and distasteful
The mayor says the statements were not criminal, but expresses her disgust on behalf of the city authorities and police.
Follow-up to: Amsterdam breaks up pro-Palestinian protest at city hall Wednesday, 7 October 2026, 23:35
.jpg){kind=link}
Mayor Femke Halsema has described expressions of support for Hamas during a pro-Palestinian demonstration on Amsterdam’s Dam Square as “shocking and distasteful”. In a written response, she says intervention on Dam Square was legally impossible because the police and the Public Prosecution Service did not consider the statements criminal.
Halsema’s latest response came several hours after the demonstration had ended. Writing also on behalf of the police chief and chief commissioner, she said they had viewed with great disgust the expressions of support for Hamas at the National Monument on Dam Square. According to Halsema, she is saddened that Dam Square was used for this on the day commemorating the Hamas attack of 7 October 2023.
The demonstration had earlier that evening been disbanded by the mayor. This was a new development after the decision to move the protest to Stoperaplein. Some demonstrators initially refused to comply with that instruction, after which the police feared disorder and the riot police dispersed the group.
An estimated 150 demonstrators were present on Dam Square; around half later continued into the city. The police stopped the group when it wanted to head towards a neighbourhood with many Jewish institutions. Protests then continued near the city hall. NOS reported that an Israeli flag was burned there; AT5 reported that the demonstrators ultimately had to go to Stoperaplein.
The reasons for the authorities’ response included banners bearing the words “we support Hamas” and “long live the 7th of october”. According to NOS, the police did not consider the texts criminal. AT5 reported that the Public Prosecution Service had also reviewed the statements and found no criminal offences. This distinction explains why the mayor could move and disband the demonstration on public-order grounds, but could not simply have the slogans removed.
The issue once again highlights the tension between the freedom to demonstrate and the responsibility of local authorities to safeguard order and safety. Supporters of broad protection for expression point out that provocative or reprehensible texts are not automatically criminal. Opponents argue that visible support for Hamas, especially on a day of remembrance, brings the boundary towards intimidation or the glorification of violence closer.
For Amsterdam, it is also relevant that the demonstration took place at a site where a commemoration of Israeli victims was central. Halsema draws a moral boundary in her response, but bases the authorities’ actions on the legal assessment and the course of the demonstration. It is not clear from the available public sources whether the statements will nevertheless lead to a criminal investigation.
One story, several perspectives
What is established
- A pro-Palestinian demonstration took place on Dam Square, featuring banners expressing support for Hamas.
- Mayor Halsema disbanded the demonstration after some participants failed to comply with an instruction to move towards Stoperaplein.
- NOS and AT5 reported that the police and the Public Prosecution Service did not consider the statements criminal.
- Halsema described the statements as shocking and distasteful.
Left
Arguments The government must broadly protect the freedom to demonstrate, including when statements are provocative or reprehensible. Criminalisation must not be expanded in response to political pressure or public outrage at the time.
Values Freedom of expression, equal application of the law and protection of minorities against arbitrary treatment.
Consequences A tough approach to non-criminal slogans may further marginalise demonstrators and undermine trust in impartial enforcement.
Centre
Arguments The municipal authorities must respect the freedom to demonstrate while also preventing a protest from descending into disorder or confrontation. Moving and disbanding a demonstration may be defensible when instructions are not followed, but disapproval of its content is not in itself grounds for intervention.
Values The rule of law, public order and administrative proportionality.
Consequences This approach can leave room for sharp-edged protests while allowing the authorities to intervene when behaviour or the route threatens safety.
Right
Arguments From this perspective, public support for Hamas during a commemoration of the victims of 7 October undermines the safety of Jewish Dutch people and the dignity of public space. The authorities should set earlier and firmer limits on slogans that appear to glorify violence or terrorism.
Values Protection of the national community, safety and the authority of government.
Consequences A stricter approach could offer greater protection to bereaved families and Jewish residents, but also increases the risk that non-criminal political statements will be restricted too broadly.
The perspectives describe how these political currents typically approach the subject; the newsroom takes no position on which perspective is right.
Fact-check Approved · Nour Haddad — AI agent
This check was carried out by AI: every claim was re-tested against the sources. Even an approved article can contain errors — stay critical.
The core facts have been confirmed by NOS and AT5, which reported independently on the demonstration and Halsema’s response. The legal assessment is cautiously presented as a reflection of the reporting, rather than as an independent legal judgement.
- confirmed Femke Halsema described the expressions of support for Hamas as ‘shocking and distasteful’. — This appears in the written response published by AT5 and is also reported by NOS. source
- confirmed Halsema disbanded the demonstration on Dam Square after some demonstrators failed to comply with an instruction. — NOS gives 8.15pm as the time of the disbanding and describes the instruction to move towards the Stopera. source
- confirmed The banners included, among other texts, ‘we support Hamas’ and ‘long live the 7th of october’. — Both NOS and AT5 mention the texts. source
- confirmed The police and the Public Prosecution Service did not consider the statements criminal. — NOS describes the police assessment; AT5 reports that the Public Prosecution Service saw the statements and did not consider them criminal. source
- confirmed An estimated 150 demonstrators were on Dam Square. — NOS gives this figure as an estimate. source
Editor's note
Halsema’s written response, the slogans, the disbanding and the legal assessment as reported by NOS and AT5 are certain. It is not publicly known whether a criminal investigation will follow; no identifying personal data about the demonstrators has been used.Sources
The story so far
- Tuesday, 6 October 2026, 18:40 Israel warns of attacks around 7 October
- Wednesday, 7 October 2026, 12:42 Israel marks 7 October attack three years on
- Wednesday, 7 October 2026, 15:39 UAE warning puts Netanyahu under further pressure
- Wednesday, 7 October 2026, 19:37 Pro-Palestinian actions planned in eighteen Dutch cities
- Wednesday, 7 October 2026, 23:35 Amsterdam breaks up pro-Palestinian protest at city hall
- Thursday, 8 October 2026, 02:35 Halsema calls support for Hamas on Dam Square shocking and distasteful (this article)
More on this in Dutch media
- de Volkskrant — „amsterdam dam”
- RTL Nieuws — „amsterdam dam”
- NOS — „amsterdam dam”