Mathias Döpfner is chair and CEO of Axel Springer, POLITICO’s parent company. America and Europe have been transmitting on different wavelengths for some time now. And that is dangerous — especially for Europe. The European reactions to the new U.S. National Security Strategy paper and to Donald Trump’s recent criticism of the Old Continent were, once again, reflexively offended and incapable of accepting criticism: How dare he, what an improper intrusion! But such reactions do not help; they do harm. Two points are lost in these sour responses. First: Most Americans criticize Europe because the continent matters to them. Many of those challenging Europe — even JD Vance or Trump, even Elon Musk or Sam Altman — emphasize this repeatedly. The new U.S. National Security Strategy, scandalized above all by those who have not read it, states explicitly: “Our goal should be to help Europe correct its current trajectory. We will need a strong Europe to help us successfully compete, and to work in concert with us to prevent any adversary from dominating Europe.” And Trump says repeatedly, literally or in essence, in his interview with POLITICO: “I want to see a strong Europe.” The transatlantic drift is also a rupture of political language. Trump very often simply says what he thinks — sharply contrasting with many European politicians who are increasingly afraid to say what they believe is right. People sense the castration of thought through a language of evasions. And they turn away. Or toward the rabble-rousers. My impression is that our difficult American friends genuinely want exactly what they say they want: a strong Europe, a reliable and effective partner. But we do not hear it — or refuse to hear it. We hear only the criticism and dismiss it. Criticism is almost always a sign of involvement, of passion. We should worry far more if no criticism arrived. That would signal indifference — and therefore irrelevance. (By the way: Whether we like the critics is of secondary importance.) Responding with hauteur is simply not in our interest. It would be wiser — as Kaja Kallas rightly emphasized — to conduct a dialogue that includes self-criticism, a conversation about strengths, weaknesses and shared interests, and to back words with action on both sides. Which brings us to the second point: Unfortunately, much of the criticism is accurate. Anyone who sees politics as more than a self-absorbed administration of the status quo must concede that for decades Europe has delivered far too little — or nothing at all. Not in terms of above-average growth and prosperity, nor in terms of affordable energy. Europe does not deliver on deregulation or debureaucratization; it does not deliver on digitalization or innovation driven by artificial intelligence. And above all: Europe does not deliver on a responsible and successful migration policy. The world that wishes Europe well looked to the new German government with great hope. Capital flows on the scale of trillions waited for the first positive signals to invest in Germany and Europe. For it seemed almost certain that the world’s third-largest economy would, under a sensible, business-minded and transatlantic chancellor, finally steer a faltering Europe back onto the right path. The disappointment was all the more painful. Aside from the interior minister, the digital minister and the economics minister, the new government delivers in most areas the opposite of what had been promised before the election. The chancellor likes to blame the vice chancellor. The vice chancellor blames his own party. And all together they prefer to blame the Americans and their president. Instead of a European fresh start, we see continued agony and decline. Germany still suffers from its National Socialist trauma and believes that if it remains pleasantly average and certainly not excellent, everyone will love it. France is now paying the price for its colonial legacy in Africa and finds itself — all the way up to a president driven by political opportunism — in the chokehold of Islamist and antisemitic networks. In Britain, the prime minister is pursuing a similar course of cultural and economic submission. And Spain is governed by socialist fantasists who seem to take real pleasure in self-enfeeblement and whose “genocide in Gaza” rhetoric mainly mobilizes bored, well-heeled daughters of the upper middle class. Hope comes from Finland and Denmark, from the Baltic states and Poland, and — surprisingly — from Italy. There, the anti-democratic threats from Russia, China and Iran are assessed more realistically. Above all, there is a healthy drive to be better and more successful than others. From a far weaker starting point, there is an ambition for excellence. What Europe needs is less wounded pride and more patriotism defined by achievement. Unity and decisive action in defending Ukraine would be an obvious example — not merely talking about European sovereignty but demonstrating it, even in friendly dissent with the Americans. (And who knows, that might ultimately prompt a surprising shift in Washington’s Russia policy.) That, coupled with economic growth through real and far-reaching reforms, would be a start. After which Europe must tackle the most important task: a fundamental reversal of a migration policy rooted in cultural self-hatred that tolerates far too many newcomers who want a different society, who hold different values, and who do not respect our legal order. If all of this fails, American criticism will be vindicated by history. The excuses for why a European renewal is supposedly impossible or unnecessary are merely signs of weak leadership. The converse is also true: where there is political will, there is a way. And this way begins in Europe — with the spirit of renewal of a well-understood “Europe First” (what else?) — and leads to America. Europe needs America. America needs Europe. And perhaps both needed the deep crisis in the transatlantic relationship to recognize this with full clarity. As surprising as it may sound, at this very moment there is a real opportunity for a renaissance of a transatlantic community of shared interests. Precisely because the situation is so deadlocked. And precisely because pressure is rising on both sides of the Atlantic to do things differently. A trade war between Europe and America strengthens our shared adversaries. The opposite would be sensible: a New Deal between the EU and the U.S. Tariff-free trade as a stimulus for growth in the world’s largest and third-largest economies — and as the foundation for a shared policy of interests and, inevitably, a joint security policy of the free world. This is the historic opportunity that Friedrich Merz could now negotiate with Donald Trump. As Churchill said: “Never waste a good crisis!”

Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić on Thursday rejected allegations linking him to so-called sniper safaris during the siege of Sarajevo in the 1990s, calling the claims “lies” aimed at portraying him as a “monster” and “cold-blooded killer.” “I have never killed anyone, never wounded anyone, nor done anything of the sort,” Vučić told reporters on the sidelines of the U.K.-Western Balkans regional business conference in Belgrade. Croatian investigative journalist Domagoj Margetić said Tuesday he had filed a formal complaint with prosecutors in Milan, alleging Vučić either took part in or helped facilitate “sniper tourism,” in which foreigners allegedly paid Bosnian Serb forces to be able to shoot civilians from positions overlooking the besieged city. In his letter to prosecutors, Margetić cites a 1993 video and purported wartime interviews, along with testimony from Bosnian officials as evidence that Vučić was a “war volunteer” in Sarajevo in 1992 and 1993, and a member of the New Sarajevo Chetnik Detachment of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS). He further alleges that Vučić spent several months stationed at a frontline position at Sarajevo’s Jewish cemetery. Responding to the allegations about the 1993 footage, which allegedly shows him holding a sniper rifle alongside other armed men at the cemetery, Vučić insisted: “I have never in my life held a sniper rifle. I didn’t even have the rifle you’re talking about, because that is a camera tripod.” Margetić’s accusations came as prosecutors in Milan opened an inquiry last week into alleged Italian nationals who may have taken part in the so-called sniper safaris, investigating potential charges of aggravated murder. Investigators are looking into claims that foreign visitors allegedly paid Bosnian Serb troops of the Army of Republika Srpska (VRS) — operating under the command of former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadžić, who was convicted of genocide in 2016 — to transport them to hillside positions around Sarajevo, where they could fire at civilians for sport. More than 10,000 people were killed in Sarajevo between 1992 and 1996, many by relentless shelling and sniper fire, during what became the longest siege in modern European history, following Bosnia and Herzegovina’s declaration of independence from Yugoslavia. The siege saw Bosnian government forces defending the city against Bosnian Serb troops who encircled Sarajevo from the surrounding hills. The Italian probe, triggered by a complaint from independent journalist and writer Ezio Gavazzeni, aims to determine whether the long-rumored “human safaris” occurred and who may have enabled or participated in them. “We’re talking about wealthy people, with a reputation, entrepreneurs, who during the siege of Sarajevo paid to be able to kill defenseless civilians,” Gavazzeni told La Repubblica.

President Donald Trump on Wednesday signaled his intent to focus on an ongoing humanitarian crisis in Sudan, a priority for Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman, whom the president met with in Washington this week. Sudan has been racked by a 2 1/2–year-long civil war pitting the Sudanese Armed Forces against the Rapid Support Forces paramilitary group, which international institutions have accused the United Arab Emirates of backing. It’s plunged tens of millions into a humanitarian crisis.. “Food, doctors, and everything else are desperately needed,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “Arab Leaders from all over the World, in particular the highly respected Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, who has just left the United States, have asked me to use the power and influence of the Presidency to bring an immediate halt to what is taking place in Sudan.” In meetings since his Tuesday arrival in Washington, the Saudi crown prince has communicated to Trump his desire for increased American involvement in managing the crisis. Saudi Arabia would like to see the U.S. do more to urge the UAE to stop backing the Rapid Support Forces, an Arab official told POLITICO, to discuss sensitive diplomatic discussions. Prior to leaving office, former President Joe Biden accused the RSF of committing genocide in Sudan. The president mentioned the Saudi government’s interest in the issue in a speech Wednesday at the U.S.-Saudi Investment Forum, telling the audience that “his majesty would like me to do something very powerful having to do with Sudan.” “It was not on my charts to be involved in that,” he said. “I thought it was just something that was crazy and out of control. But I just see how important that is to you and to a lot of your friends in the room.” Trump’s overture could draw the ire of several key Republicans, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) and Steve Bannon, who argue the president needs to focus less on foreign policy and more on domestic issues, including affordability, in light of GOP losses in a series of off-cycle elections this month. In the weeks since, he’s hosted Syrian leader Ahmed al-Sharaa at the White House and elevated Saudi Arabia to the status of “major non-NATO ally,” deepening defense cooperation with Riyadh. Felicia Schwartz contributed to this report.

DUBLIN — Ireland has a new left-wing president who has been sharply critical of Israel — and Catherine Connolly wants to push the limits of what is supposed to be a ceremonial head of state. At her inauguration ceremony at Dublin Castle, Connolly told an audience of government leaders past and present that her victory in the Oct. 24 election demonstrated Ireland wants a new political direction — one at odds, in many respects, with the country’s center-right government. She pledged to provide that counterweight in her coming seven-year term, using a position that can wield soft power on the world stage. “The president should be a unifying president — a steady hand, yes, but also a catalyst for change, reflecting our desire for a republic that lives up to its name,” Connolly told a ceremony featuring harpists and Uilleann pipers, military bands and a 21-cannon salute, as well as prayers from the leaders of every religious denomination. Connolly didn’t explicitly mention Israel or Gaza in what was, nonetheless, an unexpectedly political speech that twice called out the evils of “genocide” — barely disguised code for the independent socialist’s previous denunciations of Israel. The International Court of Justice is currently considering allegations of genocide against Israel over its conduct in Gaza, allegations adamantly rejected by that state. Overall, Connolly’s painstakingly scripted inaugural address sought to pose an immediate first test of the boundaries of an office that has no role in day-to-day government and is supposed to be above politics. ‘DIPLOMATIC SOLUTIONS’ Connolly delivered her remarks sitting beside Prime Minister Micheál Martin and Foreign Minister Simon Harris, who hold the real reins of power as the leaders of Ireland’s perennial middle-ground parties of government, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael. She noted that her inauguration coincided with the 107th anniversary of the ending of the First World War. Ireland fought in that war as part of the U.K. but won de facto independence from Britain in 1922, remained neutral in World War II, has kept out of NATO, and maintains only a minuscule military focused on United Nations-approved missions. The country today hosts more than 80,000 Ukrainian refugees from Russia’s invasion, higher than the EU average, but supplies only non-lethal aid to Ukraine. Connolly described a modern Ireland committed to pacifism shaped by its devastating famine in the mid-19th century and its 1919-21 War of Independence from Britain. “Given our history, the normalization of war and genocide has never been and will never be acceptable to us,” she said, describing Ireland as “particularly well placed to lead and articulate alternative diplomatic solutions to conflict and war.” “Indeed our experience of colonization and resistance, of a catastrophic man-made famine and forced emigration, gives us a lived understanding of dispossession, hunger and war, and a mandate for Ireland to lead,” she said. Connolly offered other veiled criticisms of a coalition government that, since taking office earlier this year following a hard-fought 2024 election, has struggled to address a housing crisis, the country’s top political issue. Martin and Harris also have stepped back from climate-change commitments made during their previous, more left-leaning government in alliance with the Green Party. Connolly — whose candidacy was backed by the Greens and several other opposition parties of the left — said she had won “a powerful mandate” to promote the idea of an Ireland “where everyone is valued and diversity is cherished, where sustainable solutions are urgently implemented, and where a home is a fundamental human right.” Against expectations, Connolly delivered most of her nationally televised speech in English, not in Ireland’s comparatively little-used mother tongue of Irish. She had made her fluency in Ireland’s official first language a significant selling point in her presidential campaign. Mary McAuliffe, a University College Dublin historian, explained why. “A huge majority of people wouldn’t understand a whole speech in Irish,” McAuliffe said, “including I must say, myself.”

LONDON — Former U.K. Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn hosted a phone bank Sunday evening for Zohran Mamdani — and swiftly triggered a backlash from the Democratic New York mayoral contender’s political opponents. With New Yorkers heading to the polls Tuesday to choose the successor to incumbent Eric Adams, the left-wing British MP announced in a social media post that he was hitting the phones on behalf of the New York City Democratic Socialists of America campaign group to Get Out The Vote for Mamdani. “Let’s get Zohran over the finish line for a New York that’s affordable for all,” Corbyn — a fellow Arsenal Football Club fan — said as he posed with a North London 4 Zohran shirt. However, the intervention was criticized by Mamdani’s main opponent, the independent candidate Andrew Cuomo, who attacked Corbyn’s controversial tenure as Labour leader. After defying the odds to deprive former Conservative prime minister Theresa May of a majority in 2017, Corbyn took Labour to a calamitous defeat in the 2019 election. His stint at the top of Labour drew frequent criticism of the way the party dealt with allegations of anti-semitism in its own ranks, with Britain’s human rights watchdog finding that Labour under his leadership was “responsible for unlawful acts of harassment and discrimination.” Corbyn was booted from Labour by its current leader Keir Starmer over his response to that report, and now sits as an independent. “Having Jeremy Corbyn — someone whose party was found to have committed unlawful acts of discrimination against Jewish people under his leadership — phone-banking for Zohran Mamdani says everything you need to know,” Cuomo posted on X. U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon also highlighted Corbyn’s post, appending the message: “Foreign interference in a U.S. election?” There was strong criticism from Republicans when Labour Party activists campaigned for Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris in 2024. Corbyn is not the only European left-winger looking to help with — and learn from — Mamdani’s campaign. French co-Chair of The Left group in the European Parliament Manon Aubry visited New York last week to canvass alongside Mamdani supporters.

BRUSSELS — It’s not a view that many Brussels officials would dare to offer in public, but the European commissioner for crisis management is clear: Benjamin Netanyahu is not a convincing leader to deliver peace in the Middle East. In an interview with POLITICO, Hadja Lahbib set out her “doubts” about the Israeli prime minister, called for continued pressure on Israel, and warned that the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza is far from over.  The biggest risk to a lasting peace, she said, is “extremists on both sides.”  There’s Hamas, the perpetrators of the Oct. 7, 2023 atrocity in Israel in which 1,200 people were killed. And on the Israeli side there are “extremists who don’t want to hear about the two-state solution,” she said, referring to the prime minister and members of his Cabinet. “We hear a lot of things that are unacceptable sometimes in the mouth of a responsible person who [is] in the lead of their country.”  Does she think Netanyahu wants peace? “To ask the question is to give an answer,” said Lahbib, who is Belgium’s EU commissioner. “I have some doubts. So far he was able to implement the ceasefire so let’s see what’s going to happen. But we all know that he was against the two-state solution … we used to say in French that ‘only idiots don’t change their minds.’” The commissioner said she wasn’t calling the Israeli leader “an idiot,” but she’s clearly not a fan.   Asked if Israel would need to elect a new leadership that is ready to embrace the two-state solution, with a viable Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel, she replied: “That’s a very good question and these are the next steps, the crucial ones.” First must come a ceasefire, then urgently needed aid, “and then a future, give a horizon of hope for these people that are living now in a sea of rubble.”  It’s unusual for politicians to discuss the electoral politics of other countries. Israel is due to hold elections for its 120-member Knesset in October 2026, though some expect the vote to come sooner as Netanyahu no longer has a majority after his coalition partners walked out.  Netanyahu is known as the great survivor of Israeli politics and has vowed to stand for election again. TRUMP’S TRUCE It’s been two weeks since the Trump-inspired ceasefire took effect, with Hamas returning Israel’s living hostages and Israeli forces pulling back. There have been attacks, and deaths, and tensions remain high. Overall, however, the truce has held. For the European Union — the biggest overall aid donor to the Palestinians (Brussels has sent more than €500 million since Oct. 7, 2023) — a political question abides: Can it repair relations with Israel sufficiently to play a role in shaping the future of the Middle East? Lahbib is responsible for the bloc’s vast central humanitarian aid budget and holds a key position in the EU’s response to the conflict. Soon, if the truce continues, attention will turn to the future political and physical reconstruction of Gaza. International allies agree Hamas cannot continue to run the administration of Gaza. It’s been two weeks since the Trump-inspired ceasefire took effect, with Hamas returning Israel’s living hostages and Israeli forces pulling back. | Hassan Jedi/Getty Images Lahbib suggested Palestinians might need their own Nelson Mandela figure, a reference to Marwan Barghouti, a leading name in the Fatah party who has been in an Israeli jail since 2002. He has topped polls as the choice of Palestinians for a potential president.  “Maybe [Barghouti] might be someone who still has credibility and legitimacy for the Palestinian people,” she said. “And if [he’s] the new, let’s say, Nelson Mandela, who’s released and who’s capable to have on one side the trust of his people and to lead the region, his own people, to peace, that will be fantastic.” SANCTIONING ISRAEL Israel’s new ambassador to the EU has said it’s time for Brussels to drop its threats — to apply sanctions and suspend parts of the EU-Israel association agreement — and instead to restore the cooperation funds that have been halted. Lahbib rejects this. “On the contrary,” Lahbib said. “The past two years show us that we need to have leverage.” America made progress on peace precisely because it has leverage, she said. “Sometimes we have to push our own friends.” Asked whether she believes Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, Lahbib said “only a court can say.” She did, though, point to an independent U.N. investigation that found there “is or was a genocide committed,” and referenced the harrowing scenes recounted by aid workers. “What happened there is inhuman and we need to recover our humanity,” she said. The EU wants to be a “player” rather than just a “payer” in the reconstruction of Gaza. But the political situation in Israel means that giving the EU a role on Trump’s so-called board of peace is a complicated decision, she said. “The coalition is fragile and it’s difficult for them to take a decision that leads to peace, a sustainable peace.” Trump and his top team are clearly committed to maintaining the ceasefire, and the U.S. president’s plan is “the end of a nightmare — we have to acknowledge the progress,” Lahbib said. “But this is not the end of the war. For that we need to work on the implementation of the two-state solution. The situation is very fluid and fragile.”

The United States on Friday sanctioned Colombian President Gustavo Petro, the latest escalation of tensions between Washington and Bogotá over drug trafficking and other issues of bilateral importance. In a press release, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said the left-wing leader “has allowed drug cartels to flourish and refused to stop this activity.” The sanctions target Petro and his associates — chiefly his wife, son and several leading Colombian officials. Bessent added that the Trump administration’s actions are intended to “protect our nation and make clear that we will not tolerate the trafficking of drugs into our nation.” Reacting to the sanctions on social media, Petro said “fighting against drug trafficking for decades with efficiency has brought these measures against me by the government of the country which we help to stop its consumption of cocaine. All a paradox, but no steps back and never on our knees.” It’s highly unusual for the U.S. to sanction the sitting leader of a country, let alone a longtime ally like Colombia. But the imposition of sanctions reflects the continued tensions between Petro and the administration, as the Colombian leader has criticized the U.S. military buildup in the Western Hemisphere in the name of combating drug cartels. Petro also previously criticized the U.S. for supporting what he alleged was an Israeli genocide in Gaza, and called on U.S. officials to face charges for a recent spate of strikes against alleged drug trafficking vessels that he claims killed innocent Colombian fishermen. The administration has made no secret of its frustrations with Colombia’s leader. Earlier this week, Trump cut off U.S. aid to Colombia after Petro attacked the administration’s drug boat strikes. And in September, the U.S. revoked Petro’s visa, citing comments he made at a pro-Palestine protest on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly where he called on U.S. service members to resist Israeli actions in Gaza. Colombia was also recently restored to a U.S. list of countries seen as major hubs of narcotics trafficking. The country’s coca fields have expanded continuously since Petro took power, even as Colombia has pushed back on claims that it has turned a blind eye to a resurgent cocaine industry within its borders. Colombian officials have pointed to the continued interdiction of cocaine. Petro, who as a young man joined a Marxist guerrilla group that fought against the Colombian state during the South American country’s ongoing decades-long armed conflict, has advocated for reaching “total peace” with militant groups that continue to fight against the Colombian state. He’s also downplayed the need for eradicating coca fields and blamed Western elites for driving demand for cocaine, severing cooperation with longtime allies, including the United States. Petro’s son, Nicolás Petro, has been accused of funneling drug cartel funds into his father’s electoral campaign. But there is no evidence that the Colombian president himself is involved with or directly supportive of the cartels the U.S. links him to. The decision was applauded by some of Petro’s Republican critics in Congress, many of whom represent large Colombian American communities and have bashed the leader. “GREAT MOVE, Petro is a problem for Colombia and our hemisphere!” posted Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Western Hemisphere Subcommittee. Salazar also called Petro a “socialist dictator” in her post on X.

BERLIN — Berlin and Paris are pushing for the United Nations to play a key role in maintaining peace in Gaza as the next, and potentially thorniest phase of U.S. President Donald Trump’s peace plan begins. The Franco-German proposals suggest the two countries’ leaders — largely sidelined in the negotiations that led to the Gaza ceasefire deal — are attempting to exert more influence on developments in the Middle East. Despite Trump’s disdain for the U.N., experts say there’s a chance the French and German calls could gain traction if Arab countries also join the push. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said in an interview Sunday that a “prerequisite” for the establishment of security in Gaza is that the U.N. play an “important role”, in establishing both a security force as well as an administrative authority in Gaza. On Monday, French President Emmanuel Macron echoed that statement after arriving in Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt, where he was set to meet Arab and other European leaders to discuss the ceasefire deal. France will “work diplomatically” at U.N. headquarters in New York to “build the international framework” for a security force in Gaza, Macron said, adding: “France is ready and has begun planning.” It’s far from clear, however, whether the Trump administration would support the U.N.’s involvement. Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan mentions no explicit role for the U.N. other than with regard to the distribution of aid. Rather, Trump’s plan calls for the creation of an “international stabilization force” involving Arab and international partners to be deployed in Gaza. SIDELINED EUROPEANS Experts said the French and German proposals show that European leaders, who were largely uninvolved in the negotiations leading to the cease-fire deal, are attempting to gain more say over how the deal is implemented, even if it comes primarily through their roles in the U.N. “It’s somewhat of an attempt by the Europeans to get back into the game, because they’re actually standing pretty much on the sidelines,” said Simon Wolfgang Fuchs, a Middle East expert at Hebrew University of Jerusalem. “The forces that actually have a say here are Qatar, Egypt and Turkey, which have been very heavily involved in this agreement, while Europe was not.” The U.K. has not yet indicated whether it would back the Franco-German call for U.N. involvement. Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s spokesperson said the U.K. would “give our backing to the deployment of a ceasefire monitoring mission, an international security force, and the implementation of transitional governance arrangements in Gaza,” but did provide more specifics. Both France and the U.K. are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council along with the U.S. Germany is seeking a seat as a non-permanent member in 2027. But Israeli and U.S. leaders are currently highly skeptical of the United Nations. A U.N. commission, in a report released last month, found that the Israeli government had committed genocide in Gaza, a finding that Israeli officials strenuously denied. “Thank you for standing up to the lies against Israel in the United Nations,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told Trump on Monday during the U.S. president’s visit to the Knesset, Israel’s parliament. In the end, however, Trump’s heavy reliance on Arab countries to strike the ceasefire deal may force the American president to consider a role for the U.N. despite his aversion to the body. That’s because Arab nations tend to favor a role for the organization, with the Arab League previously calling for a U.N. peacekeeping force to be deployed in Gaza and the Israeli-occupied West Bank. “I am not convinced that the U.S. will stand in the way of a U.N. resolution if it hears clearly from the Gulf Arabs in particular that it is a necessity,” said Richard Gowan, the U.N. director of the International Crisis Group NGO. “Trump is negative towards the U.N., but he takes a pragmatic approach to the [Security] Council when he has to.” “I doubt that the U.S. and Israelis would listen to the Europeans on this alone, but what we have seen in recent weeks is that Arab countries do have Trump’s ear over the Gaza crisis. So if the Arabs and Europeans push the idea of a resolution together, and link it to offers of troops and financing for Gaza, it could happen.”

BRUSSELS — Israel’s new ambassador to the European Union is calling on the bloc to lift the penalties it imposed on his country over the plight of Palestinians in Gaza, now that a ceasefire negotiated with a push from Donald Trump has begun. In his first interview since officially taking up the post last week, Avi Nir-Feldklein said he was “optimistic” that the ceasefire would allow for a reset in Israel’s relationship with the EU, which has been severely strained by the fallout from the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.  The ambassador conceded that it had been a “challenging” period for Israel-EU relations. But he downplayed the rift and argued there was now a window “to overcome this short, uncomfortable situation that we have between us right now and to resume the good relations that we had,” given that the peace initiative was underway.  “We cherish very much our relationship with the EU,” the ambassador said. “I’m optimistic because I believe the EU member countries, most of them, would like to see it happening and right now the Trump initiative has started in a very good way and I believe that the EU would like to be part of it. “And if you want to be part of it, you need, really, to clear the table of what is hanging above our relationship.” Last month, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen announced plans to restrict trade with Israel and impose sanctions on “extremist ministers” in Benjamin Netanyahu’s administration. She also suspended Commission funding for support to Israel, worth a total of around €14 million, as she demanded “the horrific events taking place in Gaza on a daily basis must stop.”  EU officials have been bitterly critical of Israel over what they have described as the “man-made famine” hitting tens of thousands of Palestinians and the failure to distribute aid supplies to those who need it. Some senior figures have labeled Israel’s actions in Gaza “genocide.” A number of EU countries moved last month to recognize a Palestinian state, angering the Israeli government.  The ambassador said two issues need to be resolved to allow for a reset in relations with Brussels. First, the EU funding for cooperation with Israeli institutions that von der Leyen put on hold should be restored. “This is one topic that we hope will be off the table and those projects that were put on hold will be resumed,” he said.  The second point the Commission needs to address is the proposed suspension of parts of the EU-Israel association agreement on the Horizon Europe research program and preferential trade terms. “There’s just no reason any more for it,” he said. “This needs to be totally off the table.”  EU and U.K. officials have said they want Europe to have a seat on the “board of peace,” the body that is intended to oversee the transitional governance of Gaza by a Palestinian committee. Nir-Feldklein said it would be up to Israel’s foreign minister to discuss the question of the peace board’s composition with the EU’s top diplomat, Kaja Kallas.  “But there’s probably going to be some reluctance in Jerusalem before we clear the table” of the issues “hanging above our relations.”  TWO-STATE SOLUTION  Nir-Feldklein said the success of the Trump initiative was “extremely important” for Israel, bringing an end to the conflict and returning the Israeli hostages Hamas seized two years ago.  The EU, U.K. and other Western powers regard a two-state solution, with a Palestinian state alongside Israel, as the only viable long-term option for peace in the Middle East.  Netanyahu has flatly ruled out such an option, and the new ambassador said it would be impossible while Hamas remained active in Gaza and while Palestinians continue to deny the right of the state of Israel to exist, two issues that have not been addressed under the current ceasefire. A representative of the Palestinian mission in Brussels was contacted for comment, but did not respond.  But Nir-Feldklein did not rule out that at some point in the future, if the Palestinians take a radically different approach, a two-state solution could return as an option.  “They need to recognize Israel as a Jewish state,” he said. “What we need to see is much more sincere attitudes from the Palestinian leadership toward a future solution and then who knows? Maybe then it might be again on the table. Out of three times they rejected it, twice we were the ones putting it on the table.”  The ambassador added, “It was on the table, now it’s off the table, but you know, life far away [is] dynamic. So maybe I don’t know what — maybe after we see real sincere efforts, then it might be.”  A few years ago, even Netanyahu was saying publicly he supported a two-state solution, the ambassador said, but the Israeli prime minister now has “good reasons” not to support the concept. 

Adam Langleben is Executive Director of Progressive Britain and has served as National Secretary of the Jewish Labour Movement  On Thursday morning, Yom Kippur morning, my family and I left our north London synagogue earlier than usual. We made a conscious decision not to linger, not to chat with friends outside, as we often would.  Before stepping onto the street, we removed our young children’s kippot — not a decision made lightly. We did so out of fear. By then we’d heard what had happened at Heaton Park Hebrew Congregation in Manchester. As we left, there was a van of police officers stationed outside, doing exactly what the government had promised just an hour earlier: protecting our community. I am grateful for that.  My son attends a Jewish day school where there’s a permanent security presence, and often a heavy police presence over the past two years too. Every morning, when I drop him off, I experience what it means to raise a Jewish child in Britain in 2025. Police outside school is so normal now that he has never asked me why they are there. The Community Security Trust, or CST, is the charity that protects British Jews from antisemitism and terrorism. It trains volunteers to guard synagogues, schools and community centers, and administers the government grant to help guard Jewish buildings. I have been one of their volunteers. I have worn the stab vest. I have stood at the gates of synagogues. The threat has been very real for decades. For British Jews, including me, a murderous attack on a synagogue like the one that unfolded in northwest England on Thursday was always something we’d expected — a question of when rather than if. Our fear was born from experience, history and security assessments. For two years, the temperature has been heating up. The almost weekly protests, the chants, the placards, the online abuse. Most Jews share the feeling that something terrible is happening in British society — that a threshold has been crossed.  The danger was never hypothetical. We knew it was inevitable. It might have been in Manchester this time, but it could have been anywhere. But this attack isn’t just a Jewish problem. It is a challenge to Britain as a whole. For two years, and across two different governments, a culture has been allowed to develop in which deeply irresponsible speech, sometimes lawful and sometimes not, has filled our streets week after week. We have been told that free speech, even if it makes minorities feel uncomfortable, is the price we pay for living in a free society. I used to believe that. I used to think that free speech was such a bedrock principle that my unease as a Jew walking through a hostile crowd was a small sacrifice in the bigger scheme of things. But I no longer think that; my thinking has changed. The near-weekly pro-Palestinian protests have had a cumulative effect. They’ve normalized intimidation. They’ve created an atmosphere where citizens, whether Jewish or not, don’t feel safe in their own cities and neighborhoods. They’ve  blurred the line between protest and communal harassment.  Some of what has been shouted and chanted is explicitly unlawful. Much of it sits in a gray area, just within legal bounds. And when it goes beyond the boundaries there’s no zeal from authorities to pursue a case. But the effect is the same: vulnerable communities feel menaced, targeted, and despite the police presence outside places of worship still unprotected. Antisemitism is not just another prejudice. At its core it is a conspiracy theory — the oldest one: the belief that Jews, collectively, are secretly responsible for the world’s ills. The late Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks described it as a “light sleeper.” It never disappears. Sometimes it lies dormant, waiting to be triggered by new myths, new accusations, new crises. History shows us the pattern. From the medieval blood libel, to Christian and feudal antisemitism, to the 20th century when Jews were painted as sub-human, capitalists or communists, the conspiracy mutates, never dies.  Antisemitism is not just another prejudice. At its core it is a conspiracy theory — the oldest one: the belief that Jews, collectively, are secretly responsible for the world’s ills. | Paul Ellis/AFP via Getty Images To most, slogans like Globalize the Intifada are interpreted as calls for Palestinian liberation, but for some, a minority yes, it is a call to action to attack Jews anywhere in the world — and chanting antisemitic slogans gives permission for violent extremists. That is why language matters. Words can stir the sleeper. The worst possible accusation that can be made against Jews, individually or collectively, is genocide. Whether such claims stand up to evidence is for time and international law and the courts to decide. But the shouting and screaming on our streets that Jews — in a collective form, as Israel — are guilty of genocide carries a chilling echo. It is not so different from the old blood libel. And we know what happens next. To those on the fringes of society who already view Jews as uniquely malevolent, this language is seen as permission. If Jews are committing the worst crime imaginable, then surely, they tell themselves, violence against them is justified. That is the twisted logic of antisemitism. And I fear that’s exactly what we have just seen play out in Manchester. Anxiety about reckless speech isn’t confined to one group. That same gray area has been exploited against other minorities by rabble-rousers like Tommy Robinson, and by thugs of all stripes who use the cloak of “protest” and “free speech” to launder their hate in public spaces.  We know, too, that the majority of people on marches do not come with malice. But intent is not the only thing that matters. Outcomes matter too. And the outcome, time and again, has been intimidation. Organizers of demonstrations cannot simply wash their hands of responsibility. If hateful groups use marches as cover for hate or intimidation, then it is the duty of protest organizers to act and to ensure those people are clearly unwelcome. Freedom of assembly doesn’t absolve them of responsibility. We need a fundamental rethink. Free speech is indeed an important democratic right, but it also entails a responsibility. When rights conflict, we must decide which one prevails. The right of British citizens — Jewish, Muslim, Black, Asian, LGBT, or anyone else — to go about their lives without fear of harassment or violence is as fundamental as any other democratic right. And in today’s hyper-polarized society, that surely must come first. This does not mean banning protests. It does mean redrawing the boundaries of the behavior we allow in our public spaces. It means recognizing that speech and assembly, even if technically lawful, can corrode the sense of safety that communities should be able to have. And it means governments and police forces enforcing that principle consistently across the board. Above all, it requires people to police their own speech — and especially leaders. Words have consequences and sometimes they can be deadly.