Belgium’s prosecution of circumcision is antisemitic, Jewish leaders say

Lead

Belgium's decision to prosecute two Jewish ritual circumcisers, or mohels, has drawn sharp criticism from European Jewish leaders and international officials, who accuse the Antwerp Public Prosecutor's Office of effectively criminalizing a core religious practice. The case has intensified concerns about rising antisemitism in the country and sparked a broader debate within the Jewish community over how to safeguard the ancient tradition of brit milah.

Coverage Comparison

Reporting on the story has been led by the Jerusalem Post, which covered the development across multiple articles. One report detailed the open letter signed by 45 Jewish leaders and the reactions from Israeli and American diplomats. Another, an editorial, framed the prosecution as a direct challenge to Jewish communal life in Belgium, citing the country's history and a reported rise in antisemitic incidents. A third piece offered a more reflective analysis, focusing on the role of a specific circumcision practice, metzitzah b'peh, in triggering the legal scrutiny.

All reports agree on the core facts: two mohels face charges of intentional assault or battery against minors and the unlawful practice of medicine, stemming from investigations into alleged illegal circumcisions. Belgian law requires that all circumcisions be performed by licensed medical professionals. The prosecution has been described by critics as an attack on Jewish tradition.

However, the sources diverge in their framing. The news report and editorial emphasize the prosecution as evidence of institutional antisemitism, while the analytical piece suggests that the controversy is rooted in a specific, contested practice within Jewish tradition, implying that internal reforms might mitigate the external legal pressures.

Key Claims

• Prosecution of Mohels: According to the Jerusalem Post, Belgian prosecutors have recommended referring two mohels to the criminal court. The charges include intentional assault or battery against minors and the unlawful practice of medicine, as Belgian law mandates that circumcisions be performed by licensed medical professionals.

• Jewish Leaders' Response: In an open letter to European and Belgian officials, 45 communal and religious Jewish leaders accused the Antwerp Public Prosecutor's Office of "effectively criminalizing the act of circumcision." The letter, led by Rabbi Menachem Margolin of the European Jewish Association, described the prosecution as "antisemitic in nature, reminiscent of efforts taken in Europe against Jewish practice prior to the Second World War." The leaders warned that the case sends a message that "Jews are no longer welcome in Belgium" and that "Belgian Jews are now second-class citizens with limited rights."

• International Criticism: Israeli Foreign Affairs Minister Gideon Sa'ar called the decision a "scarlet letter on Belgian society." US Ambassador to Belgium Bill White wrote on X that Belgium "will be thought of now as antisemitic by world," according to the reports. The reports also note that Israeli officials joined in the criticism.

• Rise in Antisemitic Incidents: An editorial in the Jerusalem Post cited statistics from one of the Anti-Defamation League's Belgian partners, claiming that antisemitic incidents in the country rose by 80% in 2025. The same article stated that Belgium remains one of the few EU countries without a dedicated national action plan to combat antisemitism. This claim appears in a single source.

• The Role of Metzitzah B'peh: A separate analysis in the Jerusalem Post, written by a mohel, identified direct metzitzah b'peh (oral suction) as a contributing factor to the investigations. The article says the practice, a Talmudic-era therapeutic tradition, has been linked to disease transmission, including the infection of several infants in New York City with herpes over the past two decades. The author suggests that the recent European indictments were instigated by a figure named Moshe Aryeh Friedman, who alerted health ministries about mohelim practicing direct metzitzah b'peh.

• Proposed Solutions: The same analytical article discusses the "Nordic method" as a potential solution, which involves professional training for ritual practitioners and the presence of a medical professional during the procedure. This proposal, however, is presented as one author's opinion and lacks independent verification.

Perspectives

The case has drawn a stark line between those who view the prosecution as a fundamental attack on Jewish religious freedom and those who see it as a legitimate public health measure. The European Jewish leaders and Israeli and American officials represent the former view, framing the legal action within the context of historical persecution and contemporary antisemitism. They argue that singling out a millennia-old religious practice for criminal penalties is inherently discriminatory.

Conversely, the analytical piece offers a more nuanced perspective from within the Jewish community, suggesting that the controversy is not solely about external antisemitism but also about internal debates over halachic practices. The author, a practicing mohel, argues for a solution that balances tradition with safety, advocating for the adoption of methods like the Nordic method to prevent future legal challenges. This perspective acknowledges that the practice of metzitzah b'peh, while meaningful to some, poses a risk that could endanger the broader tradition of brit milah.

The Belgian authorities have not publicly responded to the allegations of antisemitism, and the reports do not include their perspective. The prosecution is ongoing, and the case remains a flashpoint in the broader conversation about religious freedom, public health, and the treatment of Jewish communities in Europe.