Sunday’s massive march in France was “a wonderful sight in many ways,” writes Elliott Abrams, “and represents France’s rejection of efforts to crush freedom of expression and especially to ban criticism of Islam.” But, he argues:

[I]n addition to the ubiquitous “Je suis Charlie” slogans, it would have been nice to see more “Je suis Juif” signs as well. After all, the journalists of Charlie Hebdo knew exactly what risks they were running. Their offices had already been bombed, and the constant presence of two police guards . . . was a powerful reminder of the dangers. The French Jews who were murdered were just shoppers, preparing for the Sabbath. . . .

And suppose that last week’s terror attack in Paris had not aimed at Charlie Hebdo, but “only” killed four Jews—or eight or twelve, for that matter. Does anyone believe a million French citizens would be marching in Paris, with scores of world leaders joining them? . . .

This week in Paris, numerous synagogues did not hold Sabbath services, Jewish schools were closed, and community events were cancelled or postponed. Those that went ahead did so under very heavy police guard, and that guard will be maintained for a long time. French Jews and other European Jews may well decide that when they can live, work, and practice their religion only under the highest levels of protection, surrounded by special police brigades, it is time to leave. The brave journalists of Charlie Hebdo, after all, took risks with their lives—but not with the lives of their children.

In a statement released on social media on Monday, the president-elect declared that if the hostages held by Hamas are not released before his inauguration, “there will be all hell to pay” for those who “perpetrated these atrocities against humanity.” But will Hamas take such a threat seriously? And, even if Donald Trump decides to convert his words into actions after taking office, exactly what steps could he take? Ron Ben-Yishai writes:

While Trump lacks direct military options against Hamas—given Israel’s ongoing actions—he holds three powerful levers to pressure the group into showing some flexibility on the hostage deal or to punish it if it resists after his inauguration. The first lever targets Hamas’s finances, focusing on its ability to fund activities after the fighting ends. This extends beyond Gaza to Lebanon and other global hubs where Hamas derives strength. . . . Additionally, Trump could pressure Qatar to cut off its generous funding and donations to the Islamist organization.

The other levers are also financial rather than military: increasing sanctions on Iran to force it to pressure Hamas, and withholding aid for the reconstruction of Gaza until the hostages are released. In Ben-Yishai’s view, “Trump’s statement undoubtedly represents a positive development and could accelerate the process toward a hostage-release agreement.”