On Wednesday, the Swedish government hosted an “international forum on Holocaust remembrance and combating anti-Semitism” in the city of Malmo, which has in recent years been the site of numerous anti-Semitic attacks and incidents. While Stockholm—along with other European governments that took part in the conference—should be applauded for shining a spotlight on hatred of Jews, writes Gerald Steinberg, it ought to combine its well-meaning statements with action. That means, above all, ceasing to fund anti-Semitism.

[M]any of the participating governments, including the Swedish hosts, are complicit in systematic efforts to demonize Israel, . . . . which is the main component of 21st-century anti-Semitism. [These] campaigns are led by powerful non-governmental organizations (NGOs) claiming to promote agendas based on human rights and international law. . . . European governments, together, allocate on the order of 100 million euros annually to [NGOs who focus] year after year on demonizing one country—Israel.

With such large budgets and almost no oversight, NGOs are easy vehicles for political manipulation. They also have direct access to media platforms and government officials who either sympathize with their ideological agendas or see them as unbiased sources of expertise. The publications and statements that demonize Israel are quoted and echoed without fact-checking by ministers, members of parliament, and journalists, greatly amplifying their influence.

Sweden is among the most active supporters of the NGO purveyors of hate and anti-Zionist invective. Some groups supported by the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) are members of a network closely linked to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which is included in the lists of terror organizations by Israel, the U.S., Canada, and the European Union.

On Monday night, the IDF struck a group of Hamas operatives near the Nasser hospital in Khan Yunis, the main city in southern Gaza. The very fact of this attack was reassuring, as it suggested that the release of Edan Alexander didn’t come with restraints on Israeli military activity. Then, yesterday afternoon, Israeli jets carried out another, larger attack on Khan Yunis, hitting a site where it believed Mohammad Sinwar, the head of Hamas in Gaza, to be hiding. The IDF has not yet confirmed that he was present. There is some hope that the death of Sinwar—who replaced his older brother Yahya after he was killed last year—could have a debilitating effect on Hamas.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is visiting the Persian Gulf, and it’s unclear how his diplomatic efforts there will affect Israel, its war with Hamas, and Iran. For its part, Jerusalem has committed to resume full-scale operations in Gaza after President Trump returns to the U.S. But, Gabi Simoni and Erez Winner explain, Israel does not have unlimited time to defeat Hamas:

Israel faces persistent security challenges across multiple fronts—Iran, the West Bank, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon—all demanding significant military resources, especially during periods of escalation. . . . Failing to achieve a decisive victory not only prolongs the conflict but also drains national resources and threatens Israel’s ability to obtain its strategic goals.

Only a swift, forceful military campaign can achieve the war’s objectives: securing the hostages’ release, ensuring Israeli citizens’ safety, and preventing future kidnappings. Avoiding such action won’t just prolong the suffering of the hostages and deepen public uncertainty—it will also drain national resources and weaken Israel’s standing in the region and beyond.

We recommend launching an intense military operation in Gaza without delay, with clear, measurable objectives—crippling Hamas’s military and governance capabilities and securing the release of hostages. Such a campaign should combine military pressure with indirect negotiations, maximizing the chances of a successful outcome while minimizing risks.

Crucially, the operation must be closely coordinated with the United States and moderate Arab states to reduce international pressure and preserve the gains of regional alliances.