From Iran’s Holocaust-Denial Conference to an Assault on Jewish Life in Belgium

In 2006, Moshe Friedman travelled to Tehran and lent the appearance of Jewish legitimacy to a state-sponsored conference devoted to Holocaust denial and distortion. Today, the same man is using Belgium’s legal system in a campaign whose consequences could make the traditional performance of brit milah legally impossible.

When United States Ambassador Bill White forcefully defended Belgium’s Jewish community, Friedman turned his campaign against him. He attacked White’s integrity, called for his diplomatic immunity to be removed and demanded that he be declared persona non grata.

The sequence is extraordinary: from Tehran’s Holocaust-denial conference to an attempt to place one of Judaism’s most ancient commandments in the criminal dock—and then to silence the American ambassador who stood up in its defence.

Friedman’s Tehran record cannot be erased

The 2006 Tehran conference was organised by an institute connected to Iran’s Foreign Ministry. It brought together established Holocaust deniers and propagandists under the pretence of conducting a “scientific” investigation.

Friedman was not an accidental visitor. He attended as a visibly Orthodox Jewish participant, thereby providing precisely the image the organisers wanted: a person presented as a rabbi appearing to validate their attack on Holocaust history.

Contemporary reporting in The Guardian attributed to Friedman the claim that the number of Jewish victims was closer to one million than six million. Friedman subsequently denied being a Holocaust denier and disputed reports about his statements. That denial must be recorded fairly, but it cannot erase his deliberate participation in the conference.

Nor was this merely an academic gathering in an ordinary country. The Iranian regime has repeatedly presided over official rallies and parliamentary events at which “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” were chanted. Friedman chose to lend his presence to that regime’s campaign of Holocaust distortion.

Jewish identity is not legally or religiously cancelled by disgraceful political behaviour. It would therefore be inaccurate to claim that Friedman simply “cannot be Jewish.” But being Jewish does not automatically make someone a rabbi, a communal leader or an authentic representative of Jewish interests.

Belgium’s principal Jewish organisations have made that distinction unambiguously. The European Jewish Association, the Forum of Jewish Organisations, Joods Informatie en Documentatiecentrum and the Coordinating Committee of Jewish Organisations in Belgium have stated that Friedman represents none of them, leads no recognised synagogue or community, holds no recognised rabbinical position in Belgium and speaks only for himself.

He may describe himself as a rabbi. Belgium should not confuse that self-description with recognised rabbinical authority.

Why was he not prosecuted for Holocaust denial?

Belgium criminalises the public denial, justification, approval or gross minimisation of the Holocaust. It is therefore reasonable to ask why Friedman was able to appear at the Tehran conference without subsequently facing prosecution in Belgium.

The likely legal answer is jurisdiction. The reported statements were made in Tehran when Friedman was an American citizen living in Austria, not a Belgian resident speaking in Belgium. Attendance at the conference was not itself a Belgian criminal offence, and the existence of Belgium’s Holocaust-denial law did not necessarily give Belgian courts authority over speech delivered abroad by a non-resident.

Austrian authorities reportedly examined whether his conduct violated Austrian law, although no reliable public record of a conviction has emerged.

The absence of a Belgian prosecution does not vindicate Friedman. It means only that moral responsibility and criminal jurisdiction are not the same thing.

The more important question is why a man with this history should now be granted credibility as a defender of Jewish children while recognised Jewish organisations insist that he represents nobody but himself.

How could Friedman bring the circumcision case?

Belgian law permits any person who believes that an offence has occurred to report it to the authorities. A complainant does not need to be a communal representative or initially prove a personal injury. The public prosecutor then decides independently whether an investigation is justified.

That is how Friedman could make allegations against six mohels without receiving any mandate from Antwerp’s Jewish community.

Friedman’s complaint reportedly concerned circumcisions performed by non-physicians and the practice of metzitzah b’peh. He later became a civil party and claimed that his own child had been circumcised without his consent. That assertion provides him with a claimed personal interest in the proceedings, but it remains an allegation rather than a judicial finding.

Even if Friedman ultimately proves a personal grievance, that would not give him moral authority to determine how every Jewish family in Belgium may practise brit milah.

The Antwerp prosecutor is presently seeking the referral of two mohels to a criminal court for alleged intentional bodily harm against minors and the unauthorised practice of medicine. No one has been convicted. There has been no final referral decision and Belgium has not formally banned circumcision. The scheduled June hearing was postponed so that additional investigative steps could be considered.

Nevertheless, the danger is real. If circumcision performed by a trained non-physician mohel is treated as intentional bodily harm and illegal medical practice, Belgium does not need to pass a law expressly prohibiting brit milah. It can eliminate the traditional practice through prosecution.

That would amount to a ban through the back door.

An attack on a foundational Jewish commandment

Brit milah is not a recent custom or an optional cultural ceremony. It is one of the oldest and most fundamental commandments in Jewish life—the physical expression of the covenant of Abraham, practised continuously for centuries.

Antwerp, often called the “Jerusalem of the North,” is home to one of Europe’s most historically important Orthodox Jewish communities. Its synagogues, schools, kosher institutions and religious families are not temporary guests. They form part of the city’s identity.

Bart De Wever, first as mayor of Antwerp and now as Belgian prime minister, has repeatedly described Jewish religious life as part of Antwerp’s identity and promised to safeguard it. He has also acknowledged that circumcision is essential to Judaism and Islam.

Those assurances are now being tested.

The Jewish community is not demanding immunity from medical standards. It has proposed a medical commission, proper training and a certification system for mohels. That is the constructive solution: protect children, establish enforceable health standards and preserve religious freedom.

Regulation can protect both health and religious liberty. Criminalisation threatens to destroy the balance entirely.

Ambassador White said what others were afraid to say

Ambassador Bill White recognised the danger. He called the investigation ridiculous and antisemitic, demanded an end to what he regarded as harassment of Antwerp’s Jewish community and called upon Belgium to create a lawful certification route for mohels.

His language was unusually blunt. But bluntness is not the principal danger facing Belgian Jews. The possible criminalisation of an ancient Jewish commandment is.

Belgian Foreign Minister Maxime Prévot summoned White and described suggestions that Belgium was antisemitic as false and offensive. Socialist politicians also attacked the ambassador and invoked judicial independence.

Judicial independence must, of course, be respected. But judicial independence does not place a prosecution beyond criticism. It does not require diplomats, religious leaders or citizens to remain silent about the consequences of a legal case.

For some Belgian politicians, White’s association with President Donald Trump appeared to become more important than the substance of his warning. Whether their reaction was motivated by hostility towards Trump, concern about diplomatic protocol or both, its effect was the same: the ambassador defending Jewish religious freedom became the target, while the threat to brit milah was pushed into the background.

White did not attack Jewish life. He defended it. He did not demand that Belgium abandon child-safety standards. He demanded a legal framework through which trained mohels could continue performing the ceremony.

That position deserves support.

From attacking Trump to trying to expel White

Friedman subsequently filed allegations concerning an elaborate diamond ring intended as a gift for President Trump. He suggested that the gift was improperly connected to White’s advocacy concerning circumcision.

White categorically rejected that allegation and stated that his intervention on behalf of the mohels began six to eight months before the ring was presented. No court has found that Trump or White participated in bribery or an improper arrangement.

Friedman has now announced that he wants White’s diplomatic immunity removed, wants Belgium to declare him persona non grata and intends to pursue him over alleged defamation, threats, extortion and stalking. These are Friedman’s accusations, not established offences or judicial findings.

The practical effect is unmistakable. The senior diplomat who defended traditional Jewish life most forcefully is now the person Friedman wants stripped of protection, prosecuted and expelled.

Ambassador White must not be intimidated into silence.

Is Friedman really acting alone?

Belgium’s recognised Jewish organisations say that Friedman represents none of them. Yet he has pursued complaints affecting Belgian religious freedom, Belgian-American relations and the future of a centuries-old Jewish community.

That inevitably raises a question: is Friedman acting entirely on his own, or is someone else encouraging, financing or assisting him?

At present, no publicly available evidence proves that Friedman is acting on instructions from Iran, another foreign state or an undisclosed organisation. It would be irresponsible to present such direction as an established fact.

But it would be equally naïve to pretend that the question should never be asked.

Friedman’s Tehran connection is not proof that he is an Iranian agent. It is, however, a serious warning sign. He previously participated in an event serving the Iranian regime’s campaign against Holocaust history and Israel. His visibly Jewish presence gave that conference propaganda value.

Today, his actions again serve interests hostile to organised Jewish life: exposing traditional brit milah to possible criminalisation, discrediting the American ambassador defending it and seeking to have that ambassador removed from Belgium.

Parallel interests do not prove coordination. They do justify legitimate journalistic scrutiny and a demand for transparency.

Friedman should state publicly whether he is financing these proceedings entirely himself, whether any organisation or foreign representative has advised or encouraged him and what contacts he has maintained with Iranian officials or institutions since the Tehran conference.

These are questions, not accusations of espionage. Until evidence establishes otherwise, Friedman must be described as acting on his own initiative. But “no evidence has yet emerged” does not make scrutiny illegitimate.

White, by contrast, has been entirely open about the interest he represents: the United States and its longstanding commitment to religious liberty.

America’s antisemitism crisis explains White’s alarm

White’s intervention must also be understood against events in the United States. American Jews have watched antisemitism grow from several directions.

The antisemitism of the extreme right has not disappeared. But an aggressive anti-Zionist movement has simultaneously established itself within progressive politics, universities and parts of the Democratic Party.

It would be false to call every Democrat antisemitic. Many Democratic politicians—Jewish and non-Jewish—continue to oppose antisemitism and defend Israel’s right to exist. But it is becoming increasingly difficult to deny that a powerful progressive faction has hijacked much of the party’s debate about Jews and Israel.

In an AJC survey, 59 per cent of American Jews disapproved of the Democratic Party’s handling of antisemitism. More than three-quarters considered antisemitism from the extreme left, extreme right and movements acting in the name of Islam to be serious threats.

Democratic politicians themselves are sounding the alarm. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey warned that Democrats must have the courage to confront members of their own side when they go too far and acknowledged that anti-Zionism can blur into antisemitism.

Governor Josh Shapiro has called attempts to single out AIPAC and Jewish political donors “very dangerous.” Senator Elissa Slotkin has objected to treating collections of Jewish donors as a sinister “Israel lobby.”

These warnings describe a political environment in which Zionism is increasingly treated as uniquely illegitimate, Israel as uniquely criminal and Jews who defend either as morally suspect.

The Democratic Party has not been entirely captured by antisemitism. But antisemitic anti-Zionism has captured enough of its activist infrastructure and political language to make many American Jews question whether their traditional political home will still protect them.

The danger is not theoretical. The ADL recorded 6,274 antisemitic incidents in the United States during 2025, including 203 assaults and three people murdered in antisemitic attacks.

Against this background, an American ambassador who sees Jewish religious life threatened in Belgium has not merely a right but a responsibility to speak.

Belgium must choose what it is defending

Belgium must not permit a legitimate concern for medical safety to become the mechanism through which a foundational Jewish rite is eliminated.

Parliament should establish explicit legal protection for brit milah performed by properly trained and certified mohels. Medical supervision, hygiene rules, training requirements and accountability can be imposed without criminalising the covenant itself.

Belgian politicians should stop treating Friedman as an authentic spokesman for Belgian Jews. The recognised Jewish community has already said that he represents nobody but himself.

Journalists should examine his activities, financing and international contacts without declaring foreign direction as fact unless evidence supports it. His Tehran history is a red flag, not a conviction—but it is certainly not irrelevant.

Belgium should also recognise Ambassador White’s intervention for what it was: a defence of religious liberty at a moment when too many politicians preferred diplomatic outrage to confronting the danger facing Jewish life.

Moshe Friedman went to Tehran and gave a Jewish face to a Holocaust-distortion conference. His complaint placed traditional brit milah under criminal scrutiny. He attacked President Trump’s integrity without proving a corrupt arrangement. He now seeks to silence and expel the American ambassador who stood with Belgium’s Jews.

Friedman is entitled to access the courts. He is not entitled to the trust of the Jewish community, immunity from scrutiny or recognition as its representative.

One isolated activist—with no recognised communal mandate and a deeply troubling political history—must not be allowed to determine whether Jewish children in the Jerusalem of the North may continue to enter the covenant of Abraham as their ancestors have done for thousands of years.