Last month’s Greek elections ended the far-left Syriza party’s control of the government and replaced it with the conservative New Democracy party. While Syriza once shared the hostility toward Israel common to the European left, its prime minister, Alexis Tsirpas, moved his country closer to Jerusalem, enhancing economic and even military cooperation. If anything, writes the former Israeli ambassador to Athens Arye Mekel, things will continue to improve under the new government headed by Kyriakos Mitsotakis:

Greek-Israeli relations have been greatly upgraded since 2010 and are now at their peak despite the frequent changes of government in Athens. There is no doubt that these relations, which include significant security cooperation, will improve even more in the era of Mitsotakis. It was his father who, as prime minister in 1990, raised ties with Israel to the ambassadorial level. The younger Mitsotakis visited Israel last year and publicly vowed to enhance relations even more if he were to be elected prime minister. He also met with Benjamin Netanyahu and made similar statements. . . .

Another welcome development is that the neo-Nazi Yellow Dawn party, which had eighteen members in the outgoing parliament, did not pass the minimum threshold of 3 percent [of the vote] and will be left without representation in parliament. The party is demanding a recount, but the chances of that happening are very small.

The new government does include one member with a problematic past: the minister of agricultural development and food, Makis Voridis. When younger, Voridis was an activist in far-right student organizations in Athens and London. . . . Later he joined . . . a far-right party whose leaders included such known anti-Semites as Konstantinos Plevris, the author of the book The Jews: The Whole Truth. . . . It can reasonably be assumed, [however], that Voridis’s presence in the government will have a negligible effect, if any, on the close and intensifying relations between Greece and Israel.

Earlier this month, an operative working for, or in conjunction with, Hizballah snuck across the Israel-Lebanese border and planted a sophisticated explosive near the town of Megiddo, which killed a civilian when detonated. On Thursday, another Iranian proxy group launched a drone at a U.S. military base in Syria, killing a contractor and wounding five American soldiers. The former attack appears to be an attempt to change what Israeli officials and analysts call the “rules of the game”: the mutually understood redlines that keep the Jewish state and Hizballah from going to war. Nadav Pollak explains how he believes Jerusalem should respond:

Israel cannot stop at pointing fingers and issuing harsh statements. The Megiddo attack might have caused much more damage given the additional explosives and other weapons the terrorist was carrying; even the lone device detonated at Megiddo could have easily been used to destroy a larger target such as a bus. Moreover, Hizballah’s apparent effort to test (or shift) Jerusalem’s redlines on a dangerous frontier needs to be answered. If [the terrorist group’s leader Hassan] Nasrallah has misjudged Israel, then it is incumbent on Jerusalem to make this clear.

Unfortunately, the days of keeping the north quiet at any cost have passed, especially if Hizballah no longer believes Israel is willing to respond forcefully. The last time the organization perceived Israel to be weak was in 2006, and its resultant cross-border operations (e.g., kidnapping Israeli soldiers) led to a war that proved to be devastating, mostly to Lebanon. If Hizballah tries to challenge Israel again, Israel should be ready to take strong action such as targeting the group’s commanders and headquarters in Lebanon—even if this runs the risk of intense fire exchanges or war.

Relevant preparations for this option should include increased monitoring of Hizballah officials—overtly and covertly—and perhaps even the transfer of some military units to the north. Hizballah needs to know that Israel is no longer shying away from conflict, since this may be the only way of forcing the group to return to the old, accepted rules of the game and step down from the precipice of a war that it does not appear to want.