On October 5, the European Union, despite its history of hostility toward Israel and lack of concern over the fate of the Jews, issued a powerful program for combating anti-Semitism, which Robert Nicholson describes as “remarkable in its scope and aggressiveness.” Nicholson tries to account for this change of heart, and turns to a “deeper story . . . about Jerusalem as the touchstone of European identity,” that goes back to the very beginnings of the continent’s history as a distinct sociopolitical unit:

Defined as Christendom for more than 1,000 years, Europe rolled back the church’s power in the modern age (sadly, for good reasons) and put a rational-liberal order in its place. But the failure of that order to address the continent’s psychological needs, much less to confront the Islamic culture welling up inside its borders, has thrown Europeans back on themselves, forcing them to redefine the essence of the civilization they still hope to save.

Right-wing and left-wing Europeans define [their] culture differently, of course—one side cites the Judeo-Christian heritage, the other side cites the human-rights discourse—but both sense that the Jews are “an inextricable part of Europe’s identity,” and they are right. There is no Christianity, no modernity, no liberalism, no progressivism—indeed, no Europe—without the sons and daughters of Jacob. For as the historian Thomas Cahill once wrote, “the Jews started it all.”

The Jews don’t need Europe as much as Europe needs the Jews. In this late hour, defending the Jewish people is a moral mandate. Europe must come to see the Jewish people as members of an ancient nation and as the living reminder of Europe’s moral and biblical heritage. This recognition is as an act of civilizational reclamation.

The West is in protracted decline as it distances itself from the foundations of our moral order. In that, the EU’s new strategy is a promising and praiseworthy step in the right direction. Now, do Americans possess enough courage to do the same?

In a momentous meeting with the Syrian president Ahmed al-Sharaa in Riyadh, President Trump announced that he is lifting sanctions on the beleaguered and war-torn country. On the one hand, Sharaa is an alumnus of Islamic State and al-Qaeda, who came to power as commander of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which itself began life as al-Qaeda’s Syrian offshoot; he also seems to enjoy the support of Qatar. On the other hand, he overthrew the Assad regime—a feat made possible by the battering Israel delivered to Hizballah—greatly improving Jerusalem’s strategic position, and ending one of the world’s most atrocious and brutal tyrannies. President Trump also announced that he hopes Syria will join the Abraham Accords.

This analysis by Eran Lerman was published a few days ago, and in some respects is already out of date, but more than anything else I’ve read it helps to make sense of Israel’s strategic position vis-à-vis Syria.

Israel’s primary security interest lies in defending against worst-case scenarios, particularly the potential collapse of the Syrian state or its transformation into an actively hostile force backed by a significant Turkish presence (considering that the Turkish military is the second largest in NATO) with all that this would imply. Hence the need to bolster the new buffer zone—not for territorial gain, but as a vital shield and guarantee against dangerous developments. Continued airstrikes aimed at diminishing the residual components of strategic military capabilities inherited from the Assad regime are essential.

At the same time, there is a need to create conditions that would enable those in Damascus who wish to reject the reduction of their once-proud country into a Turkish satrapy. Sharaa’s efforts to establish his legitimacy, including his visit to Paris and outreach to the U.S., other European nations, and key Gulf countries, may generate positive leverage in this regard. Israel’s role is to demonstrate through daily actions the severe costs of acceding to Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s ambitions and accepting Turkish hegemony.

Israel should also assist those in Syria (and beyond: this may have an effect in Lebanon as well) who look to it as a strategic anchor in the region. The Druze in Syria—backed by their brethren in Israel—have openly expressed this expectation, breaking decades of loyalty to the central power in Damascus over their obligation to their kith and kin.