Belgium has summoned the United States ambassador to register a formal protest over accusations levelled by American officials that the Belgian government harbours antisemitic attitudes — in what diplomats from both countries described as the sharpest direct confrontation between Washington and a Western European capital in the current period of transatlantic strain, according to reporting by Politico Europe.
The Belgian Foreign Ministry called in US Ambassador Bill White after comments by American officials — understood to relate to Belgian parliamentary and governmental statements on the war in Gaza and on Israel's military conduct — were transmitted to Brussels as formal accusations rather than in bilateral diplomatic consultation. The Belgian government rejected the characterisation of its position as antisemitic in terms described by officials as unusually direct.
Belgian Foreign Minister Hadja Lahbib told reporters after the summons that Belgium had "made absolutely clear" to the American side that it would not accept accusations of antisemitism for holding legitimate political positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. "We distinguish between antisemitism, which is racism and which we condemn absolutely, and political positions on the actions of a government," Lahbib said. "These are not the same thing. We will not accept the conflation."
To understand today's headlines, we must look at yesterday's decisions. The Trump administration has adopted a markedly different approach to European allies on questions relating to Israel than its predecessors — treating criticism of Israeli military operations not as legitimate policy disagreement but as evidence of antisemitism requiring diplomatic response. This approach has collided with the considerably more critical consensus among European governments regarding Israel's conduct in Gaza since October 2023.
Belgium has been among the most outspoken European critics of Israel's military campaign, with senior ministers describing Israeli actions as disproportionate and calling for ceasefires and arms embargoes at times when other EU members remained more measured in their public language. The country's significant Muslim-majority communities, particularly in Brussels and Antwerp, have placed sustained pressure on elected officials to take stronger positions.
The formal summons of an American ambassador by a NATO ally over the substance of diplomatic communications — rather than over protocol — is an unusual step. In the normal conduct of transatlantic diplomacy, disagreements of this nature are managed through private channels, with public airing of grievances typically reserved for matters approaching crisis.
The fact that Belgium chose to make the summons public, and that its foreign minister made pointed statements to reporters immediately after, suggests that Brussels calculated that a visible response was preferable to quiet acquiescence — and that it expected public support within Europe for its stance.
That calculation appears well-founded. Several European foreign ministries issued supportive statements within hours, with officials in Paris, Dublin, and The Hague endorsing the distinction between antisemitism and political criticism of Israeli policy. The episode has sharpened a debate that has been simmering in European capitals for months: how far should European governments go in publicly resisting what they describe as American pressure to modify their positions on the Middle East conflict.
The US Embassy in Brussels declined to comment on the content of the ambassador's discussions with the Belgian Foreign Ministry. A State Department spokesperson said only that the United States remained "committed to combating antisemitism wherever it occurs" — language that pointedly declined to acknowledge the Belgian distinction between policy criticism and racial prejudice.
The episode is unlikely to produce immediate diplomatic rupture; the structural ties between Belgium, as a NATO member hosting the alliance's headquarters, and the United States are too deep and mutually valuable. But it marks a qualitative shift in the willingness of European allies to accept what they increasingly describe as the weaponisation of antisemitism accusations as a diplomatic tool.
