The end of Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s 16-year tenure following his electoral defeat on Sunday to center-right rival Péter Magyar has sparked immediate questions regarding the future of one of Jerusalem’s most reliable, yet complicated, alliances in Europe. 

While Orbán’s departure removes a reliable ally of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu within the European Union, experts suggest Jerusalem’s standing in Europe and bilateral relationship with Budapest will not be significantly set back. 

Under Orbán, Hungary frequently broke ranks to block anti-Israel statements and actions from the EU. The former leader maintained a warm posture toward Israel and voiced opposition to terror organizations. He also initiated the process to withdraw Budapest from the International Criminal Court after it issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu. Orbán called the court “political” and defied the ruling by welcoming the Israeli prime minister for a visit. 

“Israel is losing a close friend with the electoral defeat of Viktor Orbán,” David May, a senior research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, told Jewish Insider. “His willingness to defy EU consensus shielded Israel from many hostile actions. The Central and Eastern European states are far friendlier to Israel than their Western counterparts, and that will likely continue under Peter Magyar — though to what extent remains unclear.”

Magyar has vowed to maintain Hungary’s “special relationship” with Israel, calling the Jewish state an “important economic partner.” However, he has also called for “pragmatic relations,” including returning Hungary to the ICC and suggesting that Budapest will likely move away from the reflexive veto that characterized the Orbán era, replacing it with a case-by-case approach to EU measures concerning Israel. 

“We do not know much about Péter Magyar’s policy views on Israel,” said Ferenc Németh, an international relations expert and Fulbright visiting researcher at Georgetown University. “Politically speaking, I do not expect relations to worsen or for Magyar to have a cold or hostile position toward Netanyahu; rather, Hungary will align with the views of its partners on key issues concerning Israel.”

Németh added that Israel will remain “an important partner for Hungary, especially given the economic ties and the shared Jewish heritage.” He noted that Magyar’s desire to rejoin the ICC is likely aimed at strengthening “Hungary’s position among its most valuable Western partners and to achieve full alignment with their views.”

Jonathan Ruhe, a fellow at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America, also suggested that significant change in posturing is unlikely. He noted that Orbán’s defeat is “easily overstated in terms of likely impact on Israel.” 

“Israel’s standing in Europe won’t be dimmed by Orbán’s departure,” Ruhe said. “Israel has reliable partners like Germany, Czechia, Greece and Cyprus. Germany in particular has been a firewall against a lot of European anti-Israeli actions, and Magyar has suggested he’ll follow Germany’s lead here.”

Experts also noted that Orbán’s actions did not carry as much weight as they appeared and expressed concern over the former Hungarian leader’s preference for Moscow in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and complex relationship with Tehran. 

“Orbán blocked primarily statements critical of Israel, not concrete measures — with the exception of a sanctions package targeting violent settlers and organizations targeting Palestinians in the West Bank,” Matthew Levitt, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said. “And Hungary did not always act in Israel’s interest under Orbán, such as when Hungary offered Iran intelligence support after the pager attack against Hezbollah in September 2024.”

May similarly noted that Orbán was “not without controversy.”

“His close ties with Russia — and sometimes strong bonds with Iran — at times placed the Hungarian leader at odds with Israeli and U.S. interests,” May said. “Orbán’s proximity to antisemites and his antidemocratic tendencies also made him a less than desirable ally.”

Ruhe said that Orbán’s actions in support of Israel should be “weighed against everything he did to whitewash Hungary’s role in the Holocaust, engage in antisemitic dog-whistling, roll back democracy and essentially serve as an agent of Moscow — Iran’s partner in crime — inside the EU.”

“Magyar has pledged to maintain his country’s ‘special relationship’ with Israel, but without Orbán’s significant baggage that far outweighed the few concrete steps he took in support of Israel,” Ruhe added. 

Németh said that Hungary will remain “a country with a strong zero-tolerance policy against all forms of antisemitism,” noting that Orbán, despite his often vocal support for Israel, engaged in actions that could be perceived as triggering “antisemitic views.” 

“Orbán has used coded messages to trigger antisemitic views, [such as] making George Soros, an American-Hungarian businessman of Jewish heritage, a central figure in propaganda,” Németh said. “Magyar has pledged not to do that.”

The Palestinian Authority’s proposed interim constitution, a draft of which was released last week, includes support for incarcerated and deceased Palestinian terrorists and their families, a practice called “pay for slay” by its critics, which the PA claimed to have ended last year.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas published the interim constitution on Feb. 10, allowing for public comments over the next 60 days. The move comes as the Trump administration and the European Union have demanded reforms from the PA in recent months, including an end to the so-called “martyrs’ payments” to convicted and killed terrorists and their families.

Article 24 of the interim constitution states that “the State of Palestine and the relevant national institutions work to provide protection and care for the families of martyrs, and the wounded, and prisoners, and those released from the occupation prisons, and the victims of genocide.” 

Article 44 states that “the law organizes the provision of comprehensive care for the families of martyrs, the wounded, and prisoners, and those released, in preservation of their national dignity and their humanitarian and living needs.” 

“Martyrs” refers broadly to any Palestinian killed by Israelis, but historically the payments have gone to the families of those killed or imprisoned attempting to commit or committing acts of terror. The longer the sentence, the greater the payments, thus creating an incentive to kill more Israelis.

Israel, the U.S., EU and others have said the policy incentivizes terrorism. The Taylor Force Act, which was signed into law in 2018, bars the U.S. from sending most aid to the PA until the policy ends; an Israeli law passed the same year docks the equivalent of the funds paid annually from taxes and tariffs Israel collects on the PA’s behalf.

Palestinian law characterizes the payments as ensuring a “dignified life” for “partici[pants] in the struggle against the occupation.” The minimum payments are greater than government assistance provided to low-income families and above average for employees of the PA.

The PA has repeatedly made commitments to its Western benefactors to stop the payments to terrorists and their families, amounting to over $1 billion in recent years, but ultimately changed the funding process rather than ending it. 

Abbas dismissed the Palestinian finance minister in November for continuing the payments, though Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar accused Abbas at the time of being complicit and trying to “fool the world.” 

Maurice Hirsch, the former director of IDF military prosecution in the West Bank and the head of the PA Accountability and Reform Initiative at the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, told Jewish Insider that “the fact that the draft constitution of the PA includes its commitment to ‘pay for slay’ was not in any way surprising.”

“This is something which has become a fundamental element of all PA governments,” he added. “It’s a commitment that the PA in all its different levels starting from Abbas all the way down has simply entrenched in all of Palestinian society. I don’t believe that there actually is a Palestinian leader who will have the ability to say, ‘We will no longer pay any rewards to the terrorists.'”

The payments, Hirsch said, are “in the draft constitution [as] part of the Palestinian ethos in the same way as you see their commitment to expunging the Jewish presence in Israel and same way you see the commitment to the return of every single one of the refugees, as it were, to Israel to destroy Israel demographically.”

The PA draft constitution begins with a preamble that accuses Israel — without mentioning the Jewish state by name — of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

It states that “Palestine is the cradle of heavenly religions,” mentioning only Islam and Christianity, not Judaism. “Jerusalem,” the constitution states, “is the capital of the State of Palestine,” which is “committed to preserving [Jerusalem’s] religious character and protecting its Islamic and Christian sanctities.” Islam is the official religion of the PA, while “Christianity has its status in Palestine, and its followers’ rights are respected,” but there is no mention of Judaism.

The document also states that “the permanent headquarters of the House of Representatives is in the city of Jerusalem, the capital of the State of Palestine,” though the Palestinian Parliament is currently located in Ramallah. 

The Palestinian interim constitution not only seeks to extend its laws into Israel in its articles about Jerusalem, but also in “ensuring the right of return.” In Palestinian parlance, “the right of return” generally means returning to any place in which an Arab lived in Israel before 1948, though Abbas has, in the past, expressed a willingness to compromise.  “The dream of return remains alive in the hearts of Palestinians everywhere, generation after generation,” the constitution states. 

The European Union designated Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization on Thursday, marking a significant shift in policy for European countries that had long been wary of irreparably harming ties with Tehran.

The 27 European Union foreign ministers convened in Brussels, Belgium where they voted unanimously to make the designation as a response to Iran’s violent suppression of nationwide protests. The decision puts the IRGC among the likes of al-Qaida, Hamas and the Islamic State on the EU terror list. The bloc also imposed new sanctions on 15 Iranian officials, including top commanders of the Revolutionary Guard, in addition to existing stringent sanctions. 

“Repression cannot go unanswered,” Kaja Kallas, the EU’s high representative for foreign affairs and security policy, wrote on X on Thursday following the decision. “EU Foreign Ministers just took the decisive step of designating Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organisation. Any regime that kills thousands of its own people is working toward its own demise.” 

Anne-Sophie Sebban-Bécache, vice president of Europe at the American Jewish Committee, told Jewish Insider the declaration was a “historical political decision.”

“It’s a very key political decision that will also have concrete consequences, because as soon as it is considered a terrorist organization, it will have legal implications,” said Sebban-Bécache. “It means that all the counter-terrorist authorities and organizations in Europe … will now be in charge of also tackling IRGC networks in Europe.”

The United States has long regarded the IRGC, an elite military force separate from the country’s regular army, as a terrorist organization; The State Department proscribed the group, along with its Quds Force, in April 2019 during President Donald Trump’s first term. Canada and Australia have also recognized the IRGC as a terrorist group, among other countries. 

However, the issue had remained stalled in the EU for years, as designation requires unanimous consent of all member states. Germany and the Netherlands are among the countries that have repeatedly urged for the EU to follow suit of the U.S. Others, such as France, Italy and Spain, remained opposed, citing concerns over diplomatic ties, negotiations over European nationals being held in Iran, lack of a legal basis and ability for the bloc to reach unanimity on the issue. 

“It’s a question that was on the table for many, many years,” said Sebban-Bécache. “Some countries were in favor of it, some were reluctant to do it, and because there is a need for unanimity, the discussion never really took place at the EU Council level.”

In January 2023, the European Parliament, one of two legislative bodies of the EU, voted overwhelmingly — 598 to 9 — to call for the union to make such a designation, but the issue remained unresolved. 

It was not until Iran’s violent crackdown on protesters earlier this month that the conversation was reignited, sparking holdout countries to reverse course and signal newfound support for such a move. The U.S.-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) said it had confirmed at least 6,126 deaths since the start of the protests earlier this month, adding it was investigating over 17,000 more potential deaths. 

“The dramatic events that we’ve witnessed in Iran in the past month have shifted many countries’ positions, and there was some political pressure also mounting,” said Sebban-Bécache, who noted that the designation is the “best tool” for Europe to “isolate” the regime. “I think Europeans also came to the conclusion that that regime can fall and that we all have a role to play to isolate it and to make it accountable.”

On Monday, Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani announced that Italy would be withdrawing its objections, stating that it is his country’s “highest priority” to protect Iranian citizens. On Wednesday, France followed suit. 

Sebban-Bécache noted that the new decision is a way for Europe to further take a stand “against terror” and finally recognize an organization that poses a threat “not just for the Iranian people and the Middle East, but also for international and European security itself.” She noted that the IRGC has tried to develop financial networks in Europe.

“We’ve had proof now for many years that the IRGC has developed an international network … and also has already tried to conduct terrorist attacks around the world and especially in Europe,” said Sebban-Bécache. “We know that IRGC is the organ that is orchestrating all the terror and oppression of the Iranian population inside Iran, but it’s also the organ that is coordinating the financing and support of Iran’s proxies and conducting terrorist activities across the Middle East.”

Gideon Sa’ar, Israel’s minister of foreign affairs, welcomed the decision, calling it “important and historic.”

“The number one actor in spreading terror and undermining regional stability has now been called by its name,” Sa’ar wrote on X. “Designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization will thwart and criminalize their activities in Europe. It will deal a significant economic blow to an organization that controls a vast share of the Iranian regime’s economy, and it sends an important message to the brave men and women of Iran who are fighting for their freedom.”

The House Foreign Affairs Committee Majority also lauded the move, stating that Europe is “waking up to the truth.”

“The IRGC must not be given a free pass to export terror and brutality throughout the globe on behalf of the Ayatollah,” the post read.

Reps. Claudia Tenney (R-NY) and Brad Sherman (D-CA) are leading a bipartisan group of legislators ahead of a meeting of European Union officials on Thursday urging the EU to designate Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. 

Tenney, Sherman and 23 House lawmakers sent a letter to European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs Kaja Kallas on Wednesday encouraging the EU to “join the United States, Canada, and Australia” in designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization and outlining the IRGC’s record of supporting terrorism abroad, including in Europe. 

“As you know, the Islamic Republic of Iran remains a leading state sponsor of terror. The IRGC has not only committed terrorist acts throughout the Middle East but has also carried out attacks throughout the EU and against EU citizens – all while continuing to brutalize its own citizens at home in Iran, with a brutal crackdown this month leading to the murder of an estimated 12,000 Iranian protesters,” the letter states. 

“The IRGC’s targeting of EU citizens includes attacks in France, Germany, Belgium, Sweden, and Cyprus,” it continues. “These attacks span from cyberattacks and surveillance operations to targeted assassinations and synagogue bombings. Additional attacks have occurred in countries bordering the EU, such as Switzerland, the UK, Albania, and Türkiye.”

The letter was sent ahead of a Thursday meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels, where new sanctions, which target around 20 Iranian individuals and groups associated with the crackdown on Iranian protesters, are expected to be approved. France, which had remained the leading holdout among EU member states in opposing adding the IRGC to its list of terrorist organizations, announced on Wednesday evening that it was dropping its opposition to the move as a result of the Iranian regime’s violent crackdown on protesters. 

Italy has also expressed concern about the move, and it is not clear how either country’s foreign ministers will vote when the IRGC terror designation, which is separate from the sanctions against the 20 Iranian entities, comes up for a vote on Thursday.

“As recently as April 3, 2025, the European Parliament overwhelmingly voted for a resolution reiterating its call to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization,” the lawmakers wrote. “However, to date, the EU has still not moved on this important matter, despite growing consensus amongst EU member states.”

“We respectfully urge you to prioritize the designation of the IRGC during tomorrow’s meeting of the Foreign Affairs Council given its important and timely nature,” they added. “As the people of Iran rise up to protest their brutal oppression by the mullahs and face violence in response, designation of the IRGC as a terror group is more than appropriate. It sends a clear message that Europe stands with the United States in opposing terror, human rights abuses, and the slaughter of innocent Iranians.”

Lawmakers who cosigned the letter include Reps. Joe Wilson (R-SC), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Mike Lawler (R-NY), Brendan Boyle (D-PA), Chris Smith (R-NJ), Marilyn Strickland (D-WA), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Deborah Ross (D-NC), Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), Marlin Stutzman (R-IN), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA), Mike Carey (R-OH), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), James Baird (R-IN), Dina Titus (D-NV), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL), Laura Gillen (D-NY), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Juan Vargas (D-CA), Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) and Dan Goldman (D-NY).

In statements to Jewish Insider, Tenney and Sherman reiterated their call for the EU to take action against the IRGC at Thursday’s Foreign Affairs Council meeting.

“For decades, the IRGC has waged a campaign of terror against its own people and others around the world, including numerous attempted attacks on EU soil. I have for years urged the EU to join the U.S. in designating the IRGC as what they are: a terrorist organization.” Sherman, the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, said. “As the brave Iranian people continue to fight for their freedom from the Islamic Republic, the world must stand with them completely and unequivocally – including by sanctioning the IRGC, whose Basij militia continues to murder thousands of Iranian protesters.”

“The IRGC is not a conventional military force. It is the central engine of Iran’s global terror network and a tool of violent repression against its own people,” said Tenney. “With the newfound consensus among EU member states and overwhelming evidence of the IRGC’s terrorist activity, including attacks on European soil and plots targeting Americans, the European Union must act at today’s Foreign Affairs Council meeting to designate the IRGC.”

Tenney added that the move “would send a clear message that terror, human rights abuses, and state-sponsored violence will not be tolerated. This bipartisan effort builds on my years of advocacy for our allies to designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization, including Canada and Australia, both of whom have already designated the IRGC. This letter urges our European allies to stand with the United States and formally designate the IRGC as a terrorist organization without further delay.”

In the last decade and a half, Hungary has gained a reputation as the most conservative European nation, a distinction happily touted by the country’s prime minister, Viktor Orbán, who has been in office since 2010. 

In building that reputation, Orbán has courted controversy — with inflammatory comments about racial minorities and the LGBTQ community, by taking measures that critics say erode the country’s democracy and by adopting a more pro-Russia stance than most of the rest of the European Union. His hard-line policies are part of why Orbán and President Donald Trump have been able to cultivate a close relationship, with the U.S. and Hungary now far more aligned than they were during the Biden administration.

“That’s an understatement,” János Bóka, Hungary’s minister for EU affairs, told Jewish Insider with a laugh during a visit to Washington last week. 

But if Trump has taken a page from Orbán’s conservative governing playbook, bringing the two countries closer together, Bóka said there is one political trend playing out among American conservatives that he hopes Hungary avoids: the rise of antisemitism on the political right. 

“I am aware of the discussion that you are now having in the States on the reviving of antisemitism on the right. One of the added values of my trip in the U.S. is that I can study this firsthand and can discuss this with people so I have a better understanding,” Bóka said. “This phenomenon is something that is very difficult for me to understand, because at least in Hungary and in most parts of Europe, it doesn’t have a parallel, or at least not yet.”

That’s because Bóka says Hungary has all but eliminated right-wing antisemitism and the lingering vestiges of Nazi ideology, or at the very least that the country has made it “politically irrelevant.” 

“I cannot pretend the 20th century did not happen,” said Bóka, who as of May also serves as Hungary’s special commissioner tasked with fighting antisemitism. But, he added, “this government has basically expelled political antisemitism from the political discourse.” 

The situation in Hungary is more complicated than Bóka let on. Orbán has faced criticism from Jewish organizations for years over his targeting of Hungarian Holocaust survivor and financier George Soros, with the Anti-Defamation League writing in 2018 that the Hungarian campaign against Soros is “chilling.” Deborah Lipstadt, the Holocaust historian who served as the State Department’s antisemitism envoy during the Biden administration, said in 2022 that Orbán’s rhetoric warning against racial mixing “clearly evokes Nazi racial ideology.” 

Bóka, who was in Washington to meet with American Jewish communal leaders, said Hungary has adopted a “zero-tolerance policy toward antisemitism,” and said the allegation that Orbán is antisemitic is “wrong” and “a misunderstanding of what he does.”

Similar to Trump, Budapest has adopted the stated goal of combating antisemitism, even if its approach is controversial and targeted toward one particular political ideology. And like Trump, Bóka views the fight against antisemitism as tied to the country’s broader efforts to limit migration. 

“We see some elements coming from the far left and as a part of a European network that is becoming more active and vocal in Hungary as well in the past few months. But I think this is very limited,” said Bóka. “We haven’t seen violent incidents that are in any way similar to what we see in some Western European cities because of the strict migration policy we have in place. And also because of the zero tolerance policy on antisemitism, we don’t see radical Islamism as a political factor in Hungary.” 

Because his job description includes Hungary’s relationship with the EU, Bóka sees his purview as broader than just antisemitism in Hungary. He called it a “European challenge” that must be addressed together. “Antisemitism exists in all EU member states, including Hungary,” Bóka acknowledged. He thinks he — and Hungary — have something to offer other European nations as they seek to combat antisemitism. 

His first lesson to them is about Israel: If you are serious about fighting antisemitism, Bóka argues, attacking Israel’s actions in Gaza in EU forums will undermine that goal. Israel has leaned heavily on Orbán as a pro-Israel bulwark in the EU. Hungary announced earlier this year that it would leave the International Criminal Court to protest its treatment of Israel and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who faces an arrest warrant from the body. 

Jewish communities “will never believe that you are credible, that you have a real political commitment for fighting antisemitism, if at the same time you send very mixed messages as far as your relationship with the State of Israel is concerned,” said Bóka. “If you start speaking the language of isolation, sanctions and so forth, then you will lose the opportunity to cooperate with the State of Israel on fighting antisemitism in Europe, which is indispensable.” 

During his time in Washington, Bóka met with Rabbi Yehuda Kaploun, Trump’s nominee to serve as U.S. antisemitism special envoy. Kaploun had his Senate confirmation hearing last week but has not yet been confirmed. Bóka also met in New York with Jeff Bartos, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations for management and reform. He said he is “convinced” that the U.S. and Hungary can collaborate on fighting antisemitism. 

“I believe that we have a very similar strategic view on objectives and the ways and means to get there,” said Bóka. “I think there’s a lot of openness on both sides to cooperate.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned speech to the United Nations General Assembly on Friday is being overshadowed by European moves to isolate Israel, with the U.K., as well as Canada and Australia recognizing a Palestinian state on Sunday and more to come, as well as an upcoming EU vote on sanctions against Israel.

Netanyahu released a statement, in which he said he has “a clear message to the leaders who recognize a Palestinian state after the terrible massacre of Oct. 7: You are giving a massive prize to terror. … It will not happen. There will not be a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River.”

The prime minister hinted that Israel will increase settlement activity in response: “For years I prevented the establishment of this terror state facing great pressures, domestic and foreign … Not only that, we doubled the Jewish settlement in Judea and Samaria. The response to the latest attempt to force a terror state on us in the heart of our land will be given after my return from the U.S. Wait.”

U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said on Sunday that his country is “acting to keep alive the possibility of peace and a two-state solution. That means a safe and secure Israel alongside a viable Palestinian state. At the moment, we have neither.” 

He pushed back against the Israeli argument that recognition of a Palestinian state at this time acts as a reward for Hamas, arguing that “our call for a genuine two-state solution is the exact opposite of [Hamas’] hateful vision. … This solution is not a reward for Hamas, because it means Hamas can have no future.” 

Hamas, however, praised the recognition as an “important move” and called for it to be accompanied by ending the “Judaization of the West Bank and Jerusalem, Israel’s isolation and Israel’s leaders brought before international court,” as well as the recognition of the Palestinians’ “natural right to resistance.”

The High-Level Conference on Palestine Statehood, led by France and Saudi Arabia, is set to take place Monday, on the eve of Rosh Hashanah. Nearly a dozen countries have said they would recognize a Palestinian state as part of that effort, following the announcements of the U.K., Canada and Australia on Sunday.

French President Emmanuel Macron argued in an interview with Israel’s Channel 12 News that “recognition of a Palestinian state is the best way to isolate Hamas … What they want is to destroy [Israel], but if we consider that the Palestinian state will always have the objective to destroy Israel, how [do] they want to build a sustainable future? There is no way.” 

A recent poll commissioned by the French-Jewish umbrella organization CRIF found that 71% of French people reject the recognition of a Palestinian state before the hostages are freed and Hamas gives up power. In the U.K., a survey in The Telegraph showed 87% of Britons disagree with recognition of a Palestinian state without preconditions, including 89% of Labour voters. A YouGov poll, however, found that 44% of Britons supported the move, while 18% were opposed and 37% unsure.

U.S. Ambassador to France Charles Kushner noted that in conjunction with his announcement of Palestinian state recognition, Macron called for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, the demilitarization of Hamas and the establishment of strong governance for the Palestinians as preconditions for any recognition of Palestinian statehood. “These were France’s own conditions for recognition of a Palestinian state. How can France move forward with next week’s vote when none of these have been met?” Kushner said.

Netanyahu, who was Israel’s ambassador to the U.N. from 1984-1988, is known to relish his addresses to the U.N. General Assembly, embracing theatrical props, puns and long pauses on a platform where he hopes to capture the world’s attention for Israel’s benefit. 

After his UNGA speeches, Netanyahu holds court, with other leaders visiting him in a conference room in Turtle Bay. This year, he is expected to meet with Argentinian President Javier Milei, the leaders of Paraguay and Serbia and New York Mayor Eric Adams, and there are reports that he will meet with Syrian President Ahmad al-Sharaa ahead of a possible security agreement between Damascus and Jerusalem. Then, Netanyahu is expected to fly to Washington to meet with President Donald Trump.

Meanwhile, Israel’s Foreign Ministry and Economy Ministry, which oversees foreign trade, have been pushing back against proposed European Union sanctions. The European Commission proposed the roll-back of relations between the bloc and Israel after it “found that actions taken by the Israeli government represent a breach of essential elements relating to respect for human rights” given “the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza following the military intervention of Israel, the blockade of humanitarian aid, the intensifying of military operations and the decision of the Israeli authorities to advance the settlement plan in the so-called E1 area of the West Bank, which further undermines the two-state solution.” 

The proposal, if accepted, would suspend free trade between Israel and the European Union, its largest trade partner.

A source in Brussels estimated that the move would cost Israel 227 million Euros ($266 million) in customs duties per year. 

A date has not yet been set for voting on the suspension of free trade, which requires a qualified majority, also known as a “double majority,” meaning 55% of member states, and states representing 65% of the EU population, with at least four states opposed.

Hungary and the Czech Republic said they would oppose the proposal, following calls between their foreign ministers and Israeli Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar. 

Sa’ar called the proposal “morally and politically distorted.”

“Moves against Israel will harm Europe’s own interests,” Sa’ar warned. “Israel will continue to struggle, with the help of its friends in Europe, against attempts to harm it while it is in the midst of an existential war. Steps against Israel will be answered accordingly, and we hope we will not be required to take them.”

Economy Minister Nir Barkat sent letters to Germany, Hungary, Czechia, Italy, Bulgaria, Greece, Lithuania, Cyprus, Croatia and Latvia asking them to oppose the measure to suspend free trade.

The European Commission also suspended 20 million Euros ($23.5 million) in projects with Israel, dealing with civil service training and regional-EU cooperation related to the Abraham Accords, through 2027. The commission was able to end the cooperation without a vote and noted in repeated statements that it was exempting “civil society and Yad Vashem.” 

In addition, the European Commission proposed sanctions against Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, as well as “violent settlers” and 10 members of the Hamas politburo, which would require a unanimous vote by EU member states. The ban on Israelis is unlikely to be approved, especially not the cabinet ministers.

In another sign of Israel’s increased isolation in Europe, several countries’ public broadcasters said they would boycott the 2026 Eurovision Song Contest if Israel were to take part, as it usually does.

Spain, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Iceland and Ireland have said they will not participate in the contest along with Israel, and Belgium threatened to follow suit. 

Israeli public broadcaster Kan said that it will continue to be “a significant part in this cultural event, which cannot become political.”

“Israel is one of the most successful participants in the Eurovision contest — in the past seven years its songs and representatives have finished in 5th, 3rd, 2nd and 1st place,” Kan CEO Golan Yochpaz said. 

Austrian Foreign Minister Beate Meinl-Reisinger, whose country is due to host the Eurovision next year, posted on X that the contest “is a symbol of peace, unity, and cultural exchange — not an instrument for sanctions.” 

As nearly a dozen countries announced plans to recognize a Palestinian state in the last week, the European Union debated exerting an additional form of leverage on Israel, in the form of suspending its participation in Brussels’ flagship scientific research and innovation program.

Earlier last week, the European Commission proposed a partial suspension of Israel’s participation in Horizon Europe — a 95.5 billion Euro ($109.2 billion) program that covers all areas of science and technology and has contributed significantly to Israeli academia and its tech sector — in response to what Brussels called a “severe” humanitarian situation in Gaza, which it views as having been insufficiently addressed by the daily humanitarian pauses this week. 

The commission proposed to no longer allow Israeli entities to work with the European Innovation Council’s accelerator, which an Israeli diplomatic source estimated would lead to damages of about 10 million Euros ($11.4 mn.) to Israeli startups in the program, but none to research projects. 

The motion did not receive the qualified majority in the European Union Council, and therefore Israel remains a full partner in Horizon Europe. Germany and Italy reportedly blocked the suspension, and Tuesday’s meeting on the matter ended without a decision. The European Council presidency said after the meeting that it plans to continue talks about the matter. The Israeli diplomatic source said some countries wanted to continue monitoring the humanitarian situation in Gaza before reaching a decision.

The scare from Brussels came at a difficult time for Israeli academia, which has been facing overt and more subtle forms of boycotts, Emmanuel Nahshon, the coordinator for combatting academic boycotts on behalf of the Israeli Association of Universities, told Jewish Insider in an interview on Wednesday. 

Nahshon, a former ambassador and deputy director of Israel’s Foreign Ministry, who resigned last year in protest against the government, spoke about the challenges Israeli academia is facing in the shadow of the war in Gaza.

The interview has been condensed and edited for clarity.

Jewish Insider: What did you think about the outcome of the European Council’s discussion on partially suspending Israel from Horizon Europe?

Emmanuel Nahshon: They decided not to decide at the EU level, because we still have Germany and Italy blocking a possible majority against Israel, but even the Germans are telling us that this cannot go on. It’s an expression of the increasing isolation of Israel, given the unending war in Gaza, which has become more and more difficult to explain … It creates a bleak picture.

I’m very happy that sanctions on Israel in Horizon Europe did not work out this time, but unfortunately, it will happen next time.

JI: Can you explain why Horizon Europe is so important?

EN: It’s a fund budgeted by the EU and its member states, a multi-year fund for six to seven years, and its purpose is to fund joint research and development projects. Israel is one of the few non-EU countries that have been invited to participate … starting in the mid-1990s. It has been extremely successful.

European funds are extremely important because they create partnerships and networks and this is part of what has made Israel the innovation hub that it is.

Israel has one of the highest rates of return on investment and are welcome partners in top-level projects of the EU. By cutting us out of those projects, it will really punish Israeli innovation and the Israeli economy. 

It’s not only about academic cooperation — it goes way beyond that. These are projects that are translated into concrete innovations for the welfare of humanity. 

JI: What kinds of challenges is Israeli academia facing from anti-Israel elements abroad?

EN: Immediately after Oct. 7 [2023 Hamas attacks on Israel], there were mostly student protests, encampments, violent protests – those are almost non-existent now. It has shifted in the last year to something else, institutional boycotts.

Universities have decided to cut ties with Israel, as have professional associations – medical, psychology, historians, mathematicians. It’s much more dangerous. We now have countries in which the majority of universities have no contact with Israel. In Belgium and the Netherlands over 80% of universities have severed all contacts with Israeli universities, as have most in Spain and Italy. It’s beginning in Switzerland, in Geneva and Lausanne. 

It’s a slippery slope. The more it happens, the more it is bound to happen. Universities copy one another.

On top of that, we have the silent, covert boycott. It’s like Voldemort [from Harry Potter], no one is saying its name, but it is there and we feel it all the bloody time. Israeli lecturers are not invited to international events anymore; articles are rejected; Israelis are not invited to take part in science and research consortia, etc.

If it continues for a year or two, we may face dire consequences.

JI: What would those consequences be?

EN: It’s the slow strangling of the Israeli academic world. We cannot function without contact with the outside world. Israel is too small a country to be able to have its own, internal academic world. We need contact with …the Ivy League and Western European universities.

On top of it, there is a phenomenon that began before the war, because of the so-called judicial reform, and that is Israeli academics leaving Israel. This is a brain drain that is noticeable and catastrophic. We are talking about tens of thousands of Israeli academics choosing to make their lives elsewhere. It began in early 2023 and the war made it worse.

JI: The Israeli Association of Universities (known in Israel by the Hebrew acronym VERA) hired you about a year ago to combat the academic boycott. What have you been doing?

EN: We have been working very hard on two levels. The first was to create internal coordination between different Israeli universities so we can speak the same language in the fight together. We did one thing that has been extremely useful, which is to create a common database. Now, on a regular basis, we have information coming from all the Israeli universities regarding boycott attempts and events. This is super useful, because now we know how many took place.

JI: How many? 

EN: By last count there were over 800 boycott events since last summer. Some are smaller, some are bigger.

[Nahshon provided JI with a presentation given by VERA to the Knesset Education Committee in May, which said that this year they received an average of 50 boycott reports per month — double that of the previous year. Broken down by country, the number of reports about the U.S., Canada and Holland more than doubled, Spain went up 125% and England increased by 55%. A third of the complaints from North America were about the suspension of individual collaborations between Israeli scientists and their colleagues, while 18% were about difficulty in publishing, and 18% were about not being invited to lecture or participate in conferences. In Europe, nearly a third of the complaints were about institutions ending their cooperation with Israelis.]

Boycotts are complex. It’s a bit like sexual harassment. People do not always want to say they’ve been the victim, so we have to encourage people. Now, more and more [academics] are reporting and we have a fuller picture of the situation.

JI: What do you do after receiving the reports?

EN: We do work all over the world on the legal, political and public relations fronts. We emply the services of a law firm in Brussels that is helping us tremendously, because a lot of institutional boycott cases violate European laws.

For example, if universities want to kick Israeli researchers out of Horizon Europe [grantee] projects, that is against European law … We have had many successes in which they immediately stop the boycott.

Politically, we want to encourage our friends to pass legislation against boycotts, like the ones that exist in the U.S. 

There are so many lies directed at Israeli universities that have nothing to do with reality, such as calling them apartheid or saying that Israeli academia teaches the military how to occupy or how to kill.

This effort is very new, very young. We need more budgets to function; it’s challenging. I have addressed the government without much success. We are looking for partners and funds, and we do the best we can with the limited means we have.

JI: The Weizmann Institute, one of Israel’s leading scientific institutions, was hit by an Iranian missile last month, which destroyed 45 labs. Are they going to have a hard time recovering because of international boycotts?

EN: I don’t think it will be a problem [raising funds for the recovery] because so many have expressed solidarity with the Weizmann Institute. They have so many friends around the world.

The problem is that the government is not fulfilling its mission. It should be the role of the Israeli government to commit to financing it, instead of fundraising … Israeli academia is not a priority for this government because it is identified with the more liberal wing of Israeli politics. 

Weizmann will be fine, but the problem is of a more general nature. I quote the head of VERA Daniel Chamovitz, who said that “you can see that the Iranians put higher education and Israeli research at the center of their launch map” — apparently the Iranians understand better than the Israeli government that academia is a top priority. They aimed at Weizmann and the Soroka Hospital [in Beersheba, a teaching hospital] for exactly that reason.

Eleven countries declared their intention to recognize a Palestinian state in conjunction with Tuesday’s France and Saudi Arabia-sponsored conference at the United Nations on a two-state solution.

The Arab League, along with the entire European Union and seventeen additional countries, signed the “New York Declaration,” which details a plan starting with the immediate end of the war and concludes with an independent, demilitarized Palestinian state living peacefully next to Israel. The declaration calls for UNRWA — the U.N. agency for Palestinian refugees, some of whose employees participated in the Oct. 7 attacks — to take part in the transition, and for the Palestinian Authority to implement reforms and hold democratic elections within a year.

Notably, by signing the declaration, for the first time, the entire Arab League — including Hamas benefactor Qatar — condemned Hamas’ Oct. 7 attacks on Israel and called for the terrorist group to disarm, give up its rule over Gaza and release the hostages in order to end the war. 

A separate statement, the “New York Call,” was signed by 15 Western countries, six of whom already recognized a Palestinian state, and another nine who “expressed or express willingness … to recognize the state of Palestine as an essential step towards the two-state solution, and invite all countries that have not done so to join this call.”

Most U.N. member states — 145 out of 193 of them — recognize a Palestinian state, the vast majority of them having followed the Soviet Union in doing so in 1988. Nine of them took the step after the Oct. 7 attacks and the start of the war in Gaza. Eleven more announced the intention to do so this week.

The countries that joined the “New York Call” were Andorra, Australia, Canada, Finland, Luxembourg, Malta, New Zealand, Portugal and San Marino.

The declaration came hours after British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said that his country will recognize a Palestinian state by September if Israel does not reach a ceasefire with Hamas — though Hamas is the one who rejected such a deal last week — and commit to not annexing the West Bank and agree to reviving the idea of a two-state solution. 

Last week, ahead of the conference, French President Emmanuel Macron announced that Paris would also recognize a Palestinian state in September at the U.N. General Assembly.

The response from Jerusalem was overwhelmingly negative, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warning that recognizing a Palestinian state “rewards Hamas’s monstrous terrorism and punishes its victims … Appeasement towards jihadist terrorists always fails.” Foreign Minister Gideon Sa’ar called the statements “a reward for Hamas … at a time when Israel is still fighting in Gaza and there are still Israeli hostages there,” and “a rash and ill-considered decision, primarily driven by internal political considerations and pressures.” 

Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid wrote that “if Europe genuinely wants a Palestinian state to come into being one day, it needs to … demand that the Palestinians change … Declaring support for those who handed out candy in the streets of [the West Bank cities of] Nablus and Hebron on the morning of Oct. 7 does not advance a two-state solution. If anything, it pushes it further away.” 

The State Department also called the conference an “unproductive and ill-timed publicity stunt” that will “embolden Hamas and … undermine real-world efforts to achieve peace … It keeps hostages trapped in tunnels.”

Former hostage of Hamas Emily Damari, a British citizen, posted on X that Starmer’s recognition of Palestinian statehood “risks rewarding terror [and] sends a dangerous message: that violence earns legitimacy … Recognition under these conditions emboldens extremists and undermines any hope for genuine peace. Shame on you.” 

The Hostages Families Forum said that “recognizing a Palestinian state while 50 hostages remain trapped in Hamas tunnels amounts to rewarding terrorism … The abduction of men, women, and children, who are being held against their will in tunnels while subjected to starvation and physical and psychological abuse, cannot and should not serve as the foundation for establishing a state … The essential first step toward ensuring a better future for all peoples must be the release of all hostages through a single, comprehensive deal.”

Dan Diker, president of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, said in an interview with Jewish Insider that the move to recognize a Palestinian state emboldens Hamas, in that it convinces them that “they’re winning the long game. Hamas now says ‘The West is with us.’ This is exactly what they want, to pressure and corner Israel to succeed, and Hamas will say, ‘We’re not going to release the hostages.’ They’re just biding their time.” 

Emmanuel Nahshon, the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s former deputy director for public diplomacy and a former ambassador to Brussels who resigned in protest against the government last year, told JI that 11 countries saying they’ll recognize a Palestinian state in one week creates “a slippery slope” towards diplomatic isolation for Israel.

“This enables countries that were friendly with Israel to criticize us publicly, and strengthens extremely radical elements in those countries,” Nahshon said. “It’s a kind of perfect storm with the purpose of delegitimizing Israel.”

Among those countries, he said, are Canada, the Netherlands and France.

“These are countries that we always considered to be like-minded, in terms of a point of reference for the State of Israel. We don’t want to compare ourselves to African dictatorships; rather, we see ourselves like Western European democracies. Now, Western European democracies are growing more and more distant from Israel,” Nahshon said.

Diker said that 11 countries recognizing a Palestinian state is “very dangerous in the perception war.” 

“This is the greatest success for what was originally a Soviet plan, that the Palestinians under [PLO leader Yasser] Arafat and [Palestinian Authority President] Mahmoud Abbas and then Hamas inherited. The strategy is to divide … Western states from Israel, isolate Israel, and cause it to bleed to death,” he said.

Diker noted that France and the U.K.’s position is especially consequential because they are permanent members of the U.N. Security Council aligned with the U.S. If London and Paris follow through and recognize a Palestinian state, the U.S. will be the only permanent member of the UNSC not to do so.

Diker said that “what Starmer and Macron … [did] is an ill-advised move … The PA have not satisfied any of the requirements for statehood. They don’t have a functioning government; they don’t have control over the population or the ability to engage in international relations — they have 100 political warriors they call diplomats and all they do is subvert Israel.”

Nahshon added that the countries “are not stupid; they know that even if they recognize a Palestinian state it doesn’t mean there is a Palestinian state. You can trust the international community that they understand fully well that it won’t have practical, immediate implications, certainly not when Palestinians are unable to run their own state and possibly unwilling to have their own state, because if you ask most Palestinians, they would rather destroy Israel.” 

Rather, he said the move to recognize a Palestinian state “sends a message to Israel of criticism and disapproval,” Nahshon said. “It’s addressed first and foremost at Israel … It’s a vote of no confidence addressed at the Israeli government saying, ‘We are very unhappy with the way you run the war in Gaza and with the free hand given to extreme settlers.’ The message is addressed to Netanyahu and his government.”

Diker pointed out that Starmer is “a well-heeled international lawyer, a human rights lawyer,” and that he and Macron “see themselves as being the human rights conscience of the Europeans” but put pressure mainly on Israel, “ironically, while Hamas kills and tortures its own people while they’re seeking humanitarian aid.”

“Israel has had a very serious problem in leading the narrative,” Diker said. “This is narrative warfare … [that] brought us to where we are … Israel has got to pull itself together and prosecute a soft power war.”

Diker called for there to be widely-released images of “Israeli soldiers handing food and aid to the Gazans. That is political, cognitive warfare. We should be seen doing that.” 

Asked if that might be a domestic political risk to the current Israeli government, Diker said: “If we’re totally isolated internationally, it’s a fundamental threat to our existence. We can’t operate in a vacuum.”