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?

Information about a supposedly near-finalized hostage deal continued to trickle out yesterday. While it’s entirely possible that by the time you read this a deal will be much more certain, it is every bit as likely that it will have fallen through by then. More likely still, we will learn that there are indefinite and unspecified delays. Then there are the details: even in the best of scenarios, not all the hostages will be returned at once, and Israel will have to make painful concessions in exchange, including the release of hundreds of hardened terrorists and the withdrawal from key parts of the Gaza Strip.

Unusually—if entirely appropriately—the president-elect’s Middle East envoy, Steve Witkoff, has participated in the talks alongside members of President Biden’s team. Philip Klein examines the incoming Trump administration’s role in the process:

President-elect Trump has repeatedly warned that there would be “all hell to pay” if hostages were not returned from Gaza by the time he takes office. While he has never laid out exactly what the specific consequences for Hamas would be, there are some ominous signs that Israel is being pressured into paying a tremendous price.

There is obviously more here than we know. It’s possible that with the pressure from the Trump team came reassurances that Israel would have more latitude to reenter Gaza as necessary to go after Hamas than it would have enjoyed under Biden. . . . That said, all appearances are that Israel has been forced into making more concessions because Trump was concerned that he’d be embarrassed if January 20 came around with no hostages released.

While Donald Trump’s threats are a welcome rhetorical shift, part of the problem may be their vagueness. After all, it’s unlikely the U.S. would use military force to unleash hell in Gaza, or could accomplish much in doing so that the IDF can’t. More useful would be direct threats against countries like Qatar and Turkey that host Hamas, and threats to the persons and bank accounts of the Hamas officials living in those counties. Witkoff instead praised the Qatari prime minister for “doing God’s work” in the negotiations.”