Europe’s presidents and prime ministers have shown themselves willing to make speeches condemning anti-Semitism and expressing solidarity with Jews, but at the same time they are often supportive of anti-Israel policies and declarations that only legitimize anti-Semitism. Fiamma Nirentstein comments:

Hungary and the Czech Republic made great strides against anti-Semitism by abstaining from the UN General Assembly’s 2017 vote that condemned Donald Trump’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. A stand against anti-Semitism was [also] made by the six European member states . . . that opposed a resolution by the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy Josep Borrell earlier this month that called for a joint European condemnation of Trump’s Middle East peace plan. Through their opposition, they opened a real discussion about Israel’s security needs and the legality of the settlements.

Anti-Semitism cannot be defeated so long as the EU continues to authorize anti-Israel incitement by making claims about the “illegality” of the settlements and presents the “Green Line” armistice demarcation as a border for two states. In this manner, the central European authority shows a refusal to protect Israel from unending and active terrorism and warfare while insisting upon an inconsistent and unfounded definition of “illegality.” The settlements are not illegal; they are disputed. They are [located in a territory that is] an essential part of the cradle of Jewish history. By completely ignoring this last point, the EU promotes instead the idea of Jewish colonialism, with collateral slaughters, genocide, apartheid—all anti-Semitic canards.

The only way to fight [anti-Semitism] is through policy action: . . . stopping the discriminatory labeling of Israeli products sold in Europe, abolishing blacklists of businesses active in the disputed territories, and [combating] the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

Yohanan Tzoreff, writing yesterday, believes that Hamas still wishes to return to the truce that it ended Friday morning with renewed rocket attacks on Israel, but hopes it can do so on better terms—raising the price, so to speak, of each hostage released. Examining recent statements from the terrorist group’s leaders, he tries to make sense of what it is thinking:

These [Hamas] senior officials do not reflect any awareness of the changed attitude in Israel toward Hamas following the October 7 massacre carried out by the organization in the western Negev communities. They continue to estimate that as before, Israel will be willing to pay high prices for its people and that time is working in their favor. In their opinion, Israel’s interest in the release of its people, the pressure of the hostages’ families, and the public’s broad support for these families will ultimately be decisive in favor of a deal that will meet the new conditions set by Hamas.

In other words, the culture of summud (steadfastness), still guides Hamas. Its [rhetoric] does not show at all that it has internalized or recognized the change in the attitude of the Israeli public toward it—which makes it clear that Israel still has a lot of work to do.