Last week the French National Assembly—the lower house of the country’s legislature—voted to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism, which includes the more extreme forms of Israel-hatred. (Contrary to the claims of its detractors, it expressly does not label criticism of Israel anti-Semitic.) Ben-Dror Yemini argues that, although the resolution has no legally binding consequences, it is a victory for the Jewish state and its supporters:

Even if it’s essentially only a symbolic move, [the vote] has great significance [with regard to a grave] problem: the funding that the European Union and countries such as Germany and France give to organizations that support the boycott, divestment, and sanctions [BDS] movement. This decision in France will empower those who oppose such funding.

This racist and anti-Zionist campaign is a problem for Europe and France because it is led by the red-green coalition of the Islamists and the radical left. This coalition, which has a stranglehold grip on academic and media circles, is among the main causes of Islamic radicalism, which ultimately harms the Europeans themselves.

When Israel is presented as a monster, as an apartheid state, as a perpetrator of genocide, there are Muslims who believe these lies. They vent their rage in France and blame the French authorities for cooperating with what they believe is a monster. This new definition of anti-Semitism makes it clear that just as the demonization of Jews is anti-Semitism, so is the demonization of Israel or likening it to the Nazis. This is exactly what the opponents of the resolution do.

The first phase has succeeded in France, but the more important battle is the one for European public opinion and the cessation of funding for entities involved in this campaign of demonization.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.