Did the suspects in the attacks at a Rotterdam synagogue have a terrorist motive or not?

Two young suspects in the attack on a synagogue in Rotterdam stand quietly in the hallway at the start of their criminal case, waiting for the judges. Every now and then they peek at their phone. One of the two shows his ankle bracelet and he is wearing shorts. They are teenagers, without a criminal record. But they are associated with terrorism.

Together with two other boys from Tilburg, who are also due to appear this Tuesday, they drove to Rotterdam in a car on the night of March 13, 2026. There they caused an explosion at a synagogue with a Cobra and a bottle of gasoline. Then they had to do it again, at another synagogue in Rotterdam. But there they were caught.

The four from Tilburg, together with two other suspects who had prepared the case, would receive 3,000 euros. But they were arrested by the police that same night. The two other suspects were arrested a few weeks later in their hometowns, Amsterdam and Tilburg respectively. They had a more guiding role.

The pre-trial detention of the two boys was quietly suspended at the end of May. This is striking for suspects who, according to the Public Prosecution Service, were involved in an attack on a Jewish institution, committed with a terrorist motive. How is it possible that those two are free?

Ideological motives

When Rotterdam court chairman Jacco Janssen opens the hearing on Tuesday afternoon, he sees five suspects. The boys who have been suspended and the three suspects who are still in pre-trial detention. The case of the sixth suspect will be dealt with later behind closed doors, he is the only one still underage.

An explanation from the Public Prosecution Service shows that a crucial decision was made during a closed session of the court chamber that places the suspension of the two suspects in context. The two – like the other two occupants of the car – confessed to the police that they committed the attack.

And that’s not surprising. There is overwhelming evidence, the Public Prosecution Service says, in the form of chat messages, camera images, DNA results, location data and witness statements. But the boys deny that they knew their target was two Jewish places of worship. To them this was nothing more than a job for money.

Partly for this reason, the council chamber ruled that there were insufficient indications of a terrorist motive. And partly on this basis, the pre-trial detention of two of the four attackers has been suspended. They had no idea of ​​the ideological motives of the mastermind behind the attack: Mohammad Al-Saadi.

According to the FBI, this 32-year-old Iraqi is the man behind Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiya, a group that declared a holy war against Israel and the United States on March 9, 2026 because of the bombing of Iran. Less than an hour after the attack in Rotterdam, images were shared on a Telegram channel linked to this group. Al-Saadi’s name will not be mentioned in the Rotterdam court on Tuesday.

Terrorist motif re-added

Although the Public Prosecution Service states that no evidence has been found for ideological motives of the six Dutch suspects, it still wants to prosecute them for terrorism. These boys, the Public Prosecution Service states, should have known that there was terror because of the chosen targets: two synagogues.

In legal terms, according to the Public Prosecution Service, there is ‘necessity awareness’. The suspects’ lawyers dispute that. Some of them stated during the hearing that they had to explain what a synagogue is during the first conversation with their client.

In view of that discussion, according to court chairman Janssen, it is a pity that the council chamber has previously ruled in private on the question of whether there is a terrorist objective here. “That is not only a legal, but also a socially important issue that must be discussed during the substantive hearing,” says Janssen.

Thanks to a smart legal tournure from the Public Prosecution Service, he is at his beck and call. Because there is no definitive suspicion yet, the terrorist motive can be added again to the indictment. And that is what the Public Prosecution Service does.

Because two of the four executors have already been suspended, Janssen also suspended the pre-trial detention of two other suspects. There is now another suspect in custody: a 23-year-old Amsterdam resident who is said to have directed the executors. His denial did not convince the court. The case is likely to continue in July.

Give a gift





Part





Email the editor