Most of Europe’s far-right political parties—the Freedom Party of Austria, the National Front in France, and so forth—have histories of anti-Semitism, sometimes quite vicious. But recently they have been distancing themselves from anti-Semitism (and neo-Nazism), driving the worst offenders from their parties and expressing support for Israel. Charles Hawley believes that this represents more an attempt to gain respectability than a change of heart:

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing [the leaders of these parties] is that of clearly separating themselves from the swamp of racism further out on the right-wing continuum. Among classic neo-Nazi parties—such as the National Democratic party of Germany or Golden Dawn in Greece—one can still find the kind of racial anti-Semitism, virulent xenophobia, and extremist nationalism that fueled Adolf Hitler’s murderous ideology. . . . Right-wing populist parties, by contrast, can be found in the narrow strip of anti-Muslim, irredentist, and xenophobic ground in-between the neo-Nazi extreme right and mainstream center-right parties, themselves no great friends of immigration. . . .

Public-opinion polls hint at a possible explanation for the far right’s attempt to moderate its image. Even as anti-Semitism in Europe appears to be on the rise and anti-Zionism has once again become de rigueur, the Continent’s 20th-century history dictates that overt bile directed at Europe’s Jewish population does not go over well with the vast majority of voters. And increasingly, right-wing populist parties have a lot to lose. The Swedish Democrats in August became the country’s largest political party, with support spiking to a record high of 25.2 percent, according to a YouGov poll. France’s National Front has likewise seen a surge in support recently, as frustration with President François Hollande remains high and the ongoing influx of refugees dominates headlines.

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.