US Ambassador to Belgium is in breach of the 1961 Vienna Convention

How much longer will the Belgian government tolerate Ambassador Bill White’s behaviour?

An opinion piece by Jürgen Klute

The US Ambassador to Belgium, Bill White, said in an interview with the Belgian magazine HUMO on 24 July („Amerikaans ambassadeur Bill White reageert op klacht van Antwerpse rabbijn Moshe Friedman: ‘Hij is een verwerpelijk menselijk wezen, een mediahoer.’“ – US Ambassador Bill White responds to a complaint by Antwerp rabbi Moshe Friedman: ‘He is a despicable human being, a media whore.’) that: “I hereby declare the attack on this man open once and for all.” White also told the HUMO journalist: “Just wait and see – you’ll see what I do to him.”

These threats, which are unusual for a diplomat to make against a citizen of his host country, have now been followed by further action. In a press release issued by the US Embassy on 6 August, White states that Friedman is not a recognised rabbi. This had been clarified by the former Chief Rabbi of Vienna, Rabbi Chaim Eisenberg.

Furthermore, leading Jewish organisations in Belgium and Europe had jointly and unmistakably declared that Friedman was not a representative of any of their organisations, did not lead any recognised synagogue or congregation, and did not hold any recognised rabbinical office within the official Jewish community of Belgium. There was therefore no doubt that Friedman had no mandate whatsoever to speak on behalf of the Jewish community; he spoke solely for himself. White’s statement goes on to say: “I strongly urge journalists, politicians, and public institutions to stop attributing to him a religious or representative authority that he does not possess. His self-assigned titles should not be repeated as established fact, and any statements he makes must not be presented as reflecting the views of Belgium’s rabbis or the Jewish community. His lies and Holocaust denial create Antisemitism and harms the Jewish people.”

Some Belgian newspapers have picked up and published the statement. Het Nieuwsblad ran the headline „Joodse organisaties nemen formeel afstand van rabbijn Moshe Friedman“ (Jewish organisations formally distance themselves from Rabbi Moshe Friedman). Het Laatste Nieuws (HLN) ran a very similar headline: „Joodse organisaties nemen formeel afstand van Antwerpse rabbijn Moshe Friedman“ (Jewish organisations officially distance themselves from Antwerp rabbi Moshe Friedman).

Unfortunately, neither newspaper provides a more detailed analysis of the US ambassador’s remarks. After all, as far as the actual facts of the case are concerned, it is entirely irrelevant whether Friedman is a rabbi or not. As a reminder, in 2023 Friedman initiated a judicial investigation into two Jewish circumcisers in Antwerp. According to Friedman’s statement, they are alleged to have breached the legal provisions governing religious circumcisions. Religious circumcisions are permitted in Belgium, but they must be carried out by medically trained professionals in accordance with medical standards. Everyone has the right to take action against a breach of Belgian law, regardless of their education or professional role.

Furthermore, White’s claim that Friedman holds a purely personal view is incorrect. Following the death of an infant as a result of the controversial form of circumcision (metzitzah b’peh) in New York in 2011 (see NBC News, 6 May 2011 “Toddler dies after circumcision surgery”), heated discussions also arose there regarding a ban on this archaic form of circumcision. Although it was not ultimately banned, there have since been strong warnings against this method – and if a baby contracts an infection, DNA analysis is carried out in accordance with the compromise reached in New York to determine whether the mohel transmitted the infection. If so, he will no longer be permitted to perform circumcisions in future (see The Hastings Centre for Bioethics, 5 March 2015 “New York City’s Compromise on Dangerous Circumcision Practice Leaves Infants at Risk”). In 2012, paediatricians in Israel called for a ban on this type of circumcision (see „Kinderartsen willen einde aan bloedzuigen na besnijdenis“ – Paediatricians want an end to blood-letting after circumcision). In 2013, the President of the Rabbinical Centre of Europe (RCE), Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, unequivocally distanced himself from this controversial form of circumcision in an interview with the Berliner Zeitung. In the spring of 2026, following a death resulting from a circumcision, the mohel responsible was arrested in Israel, as reported by The Jerusalem Post on 1 April 2026 (“Mohel arrested for death of baby linked to circumcision”).

Quite apart from the question of whether Friedman is a rabbi recognised under Jewish law or not, it can nevertheless be stated that his criticism of the type of circumcision he has criticised is shared by a significant proportion of the global Jewish community, and that it conflicts not only with the law in force in Belgium, but also, for example, with the law in force in Germany.

Even more outrageous is White’s claim that Friedman is an anti-Semite. Elsewhere – including on his official X account as ambassador – White has repeatedly pointed out that Friedman took part in a highly controversial Holocaust conference organised in 2006 by the then Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Friedman has never denied this. One can undoubtedly criticise his attendance at the conference. However, it must also be noted that Friedman belongs to the Orthodox Jewish Satmar community. This group is part of Hasidic Judaism, which originated in Eastern Europe, and was founded in 1905 in the town of Satu Mare – then part of Hungary and now in Romania (from which the name ‘Satmar’ is derived) – by Rebbe Joel Teitelbaum, who himself narrowly escaped the Shoah. Friedman’s family was one of the founding families.

The main characteristic of the Satmarers, who today live predominantly in New York, is their strict rejection of Zionism – and thus also of the establishment of the State of Israel – on theological grounds. Following the conquest and destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar II in 587/6 BC, a theological school of thought emerged within Judaism during the subsequent so-called Babylonian Exile which rejects the re-establishment of a Jewish state. Their conviction is that only the Messiah, once sent by God, is permitted to establish a new Jewish state.

One may, of course, take a critical view of this rejection of the establishment of an Israeli state – derived from the Torah – by the Satmar community and dismiss it as wrong, if one assumes that only a self-defensive Jewish state can protect Jewish people from another Shoah. However, under no circumstances can this stance, derived from the Torah, be regarded even remotely as anti-Semitic. The Satmar community themselves suffered during the Shoah, including Friedman’s family. To accuse him of anti-Semitism is simply outrageous.

Screenshot

In a post on his official ambassador account on X, White addresses the Antwerp Public Prosecutor’s Office directly in an unprecedented manner (see the screenshot alongside). White accuses Friedman of being a fraudster and asks the Public Prosecutor’s Office: “Do you vet who you accept a complaint from?” He immediately follows this up with the demand, phrased as a question: “When will this bogus investigation into the beautiful Mohelim be dropped?” In a further post on X, White claims that Friedman beat his wife more than 20 years ago, when he was living in Vienna.

This once again highlights the ambassador’s contempt for the rule of law: in a state governed by the rule of law, the courts examine the consistency of the facts presented in a case and whether these contravene applicable law, and impose a penalty where appropriate. It is one of the achievements of a state governed by the rule of law that the political, religious or other affiliations of the claimant – and even their moral integrity – play no part in this process.

Friedman’s professional status is irrelevant to the issues under discussion here. As a Belgian citizen, he advocates compliance with legal regulations and, by extension, respect for the rule of law. This is of central importance to the Jewish community. The German-Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt once stated, as a consequence of the Shoah, that every human being has the right to have rights. The Nazis, however, had stripped the Jews of every right by declaring them stateless. From this, Hannah Arendt concluded that it must be ensured that every human being belongs to a legal community capable of protecting them from abuses by the state’s monopoly on power – that is, a dictatorial government – by means of a democratic separation of powers and the rule of law. This is precisely what Friedman is calling for.

And that is precisely the point of contention with the US Ambassador: his concern is not about circumcision practices in Antwerp, but rather an attack on the rule of law and the fundamental values and principles of the European Union. Greg Van Roosbroeck had already pointed this out in February 2026 in an article in the Gazet van Antwerpen (GVA, referring to the dispute over the Antwerp circumcisers: “White’s attack fits seamlessly into a conflict strategy that the United States has been pursuing for a year now. As well as attacking the European economy, it has also set its sights on European territory and natural resources. In addition, it is undermining our political system, and now this demarche against our judiciary has been added to the list.”

The Dutch writer Ila Leonard Pfeijffer had already provided a very incisive analysis and explanation of precisely what the US under Trump is aiming to achieve, based on documents and statements from the Trump administration, in a column published in the Belgian newspaper *De Morgen* in the summer of 2025 („Het doel van de VS? Regimewisseling in Europa“ – The US’s goal? Regime change in Europe). Pfeijffer writes:

“Whilst a constitutional democracy is designed in accordance with the guiding principle that the concentration of power must be prevented, even at the expense of efficiency, as James Madison argued in his Federalist Paper No. 10, and that the consistent separation of powers according to the model of the trias politica and a sophisticated system of checks and -balances form the very essence of the system of government, in an absolutist view of democracy it is undemocratic to subject a democratic mandate to restrictions.”

Pfeijffer continues: “An absolute democracy seeks to merge the legislative, executive and judicial powers in the person of the democratically elected leader. Whilst a constitutional democracy is characterised by a constant search for a balance between the interests of the majority and those of minorities, absolute democracy results in a dictatorship of the majority.”

Pfeijffer sees the goal of Trump’s and his entourage’s policy towards Europe as the establishment of an absolute democracy, in the sense described above, within the European Union and its Member States.

White calls for the Belgian government to intervene in the legal proceedings under the rule of law against the circumcisers in Antwerp – entirely in keeping with the spirit of an absolute democracy, as characterised here by Pfeijffer. Friedman’s interventions stand in direct opposition to this. As White has no factual counter-arguments to offer, his only recourse is to discredit Friedman as a person.

To date, the Belgian Government has also opposed White’s attempts to divide and destabilise Belgian society. However, its response has been rather restrained. It could do much more. For Bill White’s actions constitute, without a doubt, a breach of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961. Article 41 states: “Without prejudice to their privileges and immunities, it is the duty of all persons enjoying such privileges and immunities to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving State. They also have a duty not to interfere in the internal affairs of that State.” (Emphasis added by the author) If an ambassador violates this, then, according to Article 9 of the Vienna Convention, the government of the host country has the right to declare an ambassador persona non grata on the grounds of his or her actions and to request that he or she leave the country. It is not even necessary to state reasons for doing so.

The article by Greg Van Roosbroeck in the GVA from February 2026, cited earlier, concludes: “The fact that Foreign Secretary Maxime Prévot (Les Engagés) is calling White to account speaks volumes. Ambassadors who are summoned to explain themselves are usually those from countries with a bit of a smell about them. It speaks volumes, but it is not surprising. The United States has become a bit more like Russia again.”

In the spirit of absolute democracy, White – in consultation with his boss in the White House – has long since flouted all the rules of the Vienna Convention and effectively rendered it null and void. There are therefore sufficient grounds for the Belgian Foreign Minister, Maxime Prévot, to summon Bill White once again, declare him persona non grata and send him straight back to Washington.

It is difficult to understand why Jewish organisations have evidently gone along with the manoeuvres of Trump and his representative in Belgium. Jewish life – like the lives of all minorities – is protected solely by the rule of law in the form of a constitutional democracy. If the rule of law breaks down, Jewish life will depend on the whims of a man in the White House who is unpredictable and who, above all, is driven by his own greed for power and money. As history teaches us, in the worst-case scenario, social minorities pay the highest price for this.