Belgium’s only Jewish member of parliament has faced accusations of “split loyalty” after seeking advice in the United States regarding Belgium’s approach to ritual circumcision. The controversy has sparked a broader debate about religious freedom, public health regulation and antisemitic tropes in political discourse, reports The Jerusalem Post.
The dispute began when US Ambassador to Belgium Bill White publicly urged Belgian authorities to ensure legal protections for Jewish religious circumcision. Writing on social media, White stated: “You must make a legal provision to allow Jewish religious mohels to perform their duties here in Belgium. It’s done in all civilised countries as a legal procedure.”
Belgian Deputy Prime Minister Maxime Prévot responded sharply, rejecting any suggestion that Belgium was antisemitic. He described such claims as “false, offensive, and unacceptable,” adding that Belgian law permits ritual circumcision when it is performed by a qualified physician under strict health and safety standards.
The diplomatic exchange follows a series of police raids last year in Antwerp’s Jewish Quarter. Belgian authorities launched an investigation into several mohalim — trained practitioners who perform Jewish circumcision, over concerns that some procedures may not have complied with medical regulations.
The investigation reportedly stemmed from a complaint filed by Rabbi Moshe Friedman, who accused six mohalim of performing metzitzah b’peh, a traditional practice in which the mohel cleans the wound by suction, often using a sterile device. Health authorities have scrutinised the practice in several countries due to concerns about possible infection risks.
The political controversy intensified after N-VA MP Michael Freilich confirmed that he had raised the issue during a visit to Washington in May 2025. He said he had sought guidance on how the United States regulates circumcision, given that the procedure is legally established there.
“I asked them to assist us in finding the correct legislation, since circumcision is established in the United States,” Freilich told Belgian media.
His actions prompted criticism from political opponents. CD&V chairman Sammy Mahdi described the move as “worrying” and “totally inappropriate,” arguing that Belgian lawmakers should not seek foreign influence in domestic legal matters. The Green Party called for an ethical investigation, and some critics suggested Freilich was prioritising foreign interests over Belgian ones.
Green Party deputy Meyrem Almaci accused him of having “a history of loyalty to foreign countries,” remarks that supporters say echo long-standing antisemitic tropes questioning Jewish political loyalty.
Freilich rejected the accusations, stating on Radio Judaica that Belgium “could not be considered antisemitic.” He added that accusing a Jewish official of disloyalty to his country was “textbook antisemitism.”
The Jewish Information and Documentation Centre (JID) condemned what it described as “unjustified and dangerous attempts to discredit him.” Ambassador Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun characterised the attacks as resembling a “modern-day Dreyfus Affair,” referencing the infamous 19th-century French case in which a Jewish army officer was falsely accused of treason.
Supporters argue that debate over circumcision laws is legitimate, but say that allegations of divided loyalty cross a line into antisemitic rhetoric. The case highlights the delicate balance between religious practice, public health regulation and the protection of minority rights in Europe.
The investigation into circumcision practices in Belgium remains ongoing, while the political fallout continues to fuel debate about both religious freedom and the language used in public discourse.
Photo credit: Courtesy of Michael Freilich
More News
