Examining the potential changes that may occur in attitudes toward the Jewish state in London, Brussels, and elsewhere on the continent in the wake of the UK’s decision to leave the EU, Jonathan Rynhold cautions against overestimating the decision’s impact:

The UK-Israel relationship is stronger in terms of political, diplomatic, and military cooperation than is the multilateral relationship between the EU and Israel. The UK has been less antagonistic to Israel’s security concerns since Tony Blair, and all prime ministers since then have taken the same position, viewing Israel and the UK’s security as linked. [However, when Britain acts not alone but as a stakeholder in EU policy], support for Israel becomes something that is negotiated away because there are other immediate priorities. For example, if the [British] prime minister might want his/or her associate to be the EU commissioner and the price for that is agreeing to something else on Israel, [since] Israel is not the UK’s priority [it will be a small price to pay]. . . .

The negative side to Brexit is that Britain will not be promoting a position that is more sensitive to Israeli security concerns and positions at the negotiating table in the EU. . . .

When we talk about decision-making in the EU, we need to distinguish between its member states and the European Commission in Brussels. The commission has an interest in moving beyond the nation state, trying to increase the power of the EU at the expense of the member states. It tends to be anti-Israel, partly because [its members and officials] do not like the idea of the nation state and Israel likes to emphasis itself as a nation state, and partly because it aims to distinguish itself from the U.S. Member states, however, remain the main actors in EU foreign-policy making and tend to be more sympathetic to Israel than the EU’s collective bodies.

Also, because of the economic and migrant crisis in Europe, what is driving EU foreign policy toward Israel is not ideology, but political and economic pragmatism.

While it is commendable that administrators of several universities finally called upon police to crack down on violent and disruptive anti-Israel protests, the actions they have taken may be insufficient. At Columbia, demonstrators reestablished their encampment on the main quad after it had been cleared by the police, and the university seems reluctant to use force again. The school also decided to hold classes remotely until the end of the semester. Such moves, whatever their merits, do nothing to fix the factors that allowed campuses to become hotbeds of pro-Hamas activism in the first place. The editors of National Review examine how things go to this point:

Since the 10/7 massacre, Columbia’s Jewish students have been forced to endure routine calls for their execution. It shouldn’t have taken the slaughter, rape, and brutalization of Israeli Jews to expose chants like “Globalize the intifada” and “Death to the Zionist state” as calls for violence, but the university refused to intervene on behalf of its besieged students. When an Israeli student was beaten with a stick outside Columbia’s library, it occasioned little soul-searching from faculty. Indeed, it served only as the impetus to establish an “Anti-Semitism Task Force,” which subsequently expressed “serious concerns” about the university’s commitment to enforcing its codes of conduct against anti-Semitic violators.

But little was done. Indeed, as late as last month the school served as host to speakers who praised the 10/7 attacks and even “hijacking airplanes” as “important tactics that the Palestinian resistance have engaged in.”

The school’s lackadaisical approach created a permission structure to menace and harass Jewish students, and that’s what happened. . . . Now is the time finally to do something about this kind of harassment and associated acts of trespass and disorder. Yale did the right thing when police cleared out an encampment [on Monday]. But Columbia remains a daily reminder of what happens when freaks and haters are allowed to impose their will on campus.