Last week the Vatican issued a “Reflection” on Jewish-Christian relations, updating its doctrine on the connection between the two religions. The document declares that the Torah remains a binding covenant and a potential path to putting Jews in “right relationship” with God. Contrary to what was widely reported in the press, however, it does not forbid, or even actively discourage, the effort to bring Jews to Christianity, although it makes a point of not actively encouraging it, either. Yoram Hazony evaluates the statement’s implications:

[T]he “Reflection” demonstrates an intense desire on the part of the Church to rebuild Catholic theology so as to put an end to nearly two millennia of Christian hostility toward Judaism. The document repeatedly and explicitly renounces the mainstream medieval view according to which the Christian “New Covenant” has replaced or superseded the Jewish people’s covenant with the God of Israel. . . .

These are changes that Jews should obviously welcome. . . . [However], it is important to note that the “Reflection” is not an endorsement of the idea that there are two different possible routes to salvation. . . . The commission [that authored it] thus holds what to Jews must appear to be two irreconcilable and contradictory views: on the one hand, that the Torah is sufficient for “a successful life in right relationship with God”; on the other, that the Christian teaching is “the universal and therefore also exclusive” way of doing God’s will. . . . [Indeed], we must be prepared for the possibility that the Church will never be ready to take the step of calling on Christians to refrain from mission and witness directed toward Jews.

It is not clear, however, that we should view this as such a terrible thing. Jews have many interests that may be advanced through practical cooperation with Christians, and the number of such common concerns seems only to be growing with time. An alliance on issues of common concern does not . . . require some kind of theological “end-of-conflict” agreement between Jewish and Christian theology as a precondition. On the contrary, there is much to be lost in seeking such an agreement.

Established in 2012 and maintaining branches in Europe, North America, and Iran, the Samidoun Palestinian Prisoner Network claims its goal is merely to show “solidarity” for imprisoned Palestinians. The organization’s leader, however, has admitted to being a representative of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), a notorious terrorist group whose most recent accomplishments include murdering a seventeen-year-old girl. As Arsen Ostrovsky and Patricia Teitelbaum point out, Samidoun is just one example of how the European Union allows Iran-backed terrorists to operate in its midst:

The PFLP is a proxy of the Iranian regime, which provides the terror group with money, training, and weapons. Samidoun . . . has a branch in Tehran. It has even held events there, under the pretext of “cultural activity,” to elicit support for operations in Europe. Its leader, Khaled Barakat, is a regular on Iran’s state [channel] PressTV, calling for violence and lauding Iran’s involvement in the region. It is utterly incomprehensible, therefore, that the EU has not yet designated Samidoun a terror group.

According to the Council of the European Union, groups and/or individuals can be added to the EU terror list on the basis of “proposals submitted by member states based on a decision by a competent authority of a member state or a third country.” In this regard, there is already a standing designation by Israel of Samidoun as a terror group and a decision of a German court finding Barakat to be a senior PFLP operative.

Given the irrefutable axis-of-terror between Samidoun, PFLP, and the Iranian regime, the EU has a duty to put Samidoun and senior Samidoun leaders on the EU terror list. It should do this not as some favor to Israel, but because otherwise it continues to turn a blind eye to a group that presents a clear and present security threat to the European Union and EU citizens.