Jew-hate is sabotaging Europe’s foreign policy, again.

Europe chose neutrality not out of strategy, but because segments of its own societies have made supporting the Jewish state untenable — even when doing so aligns with Europe’s own interests.

Antisemitic demonstrator in Berlin with Nazi tattoos on arm (photo: Boris Niehaus/Wikipedia)

Please consider supporting our mission to help everyone better understand and become smarter about the Jewish world. A gift of any amount helps keep our platform free of advertising and accessible to all.

---

This is a guest essay by Vanessa Berg, who writes about Judaism and Israel.

You can also listen to the podcast version of this essay on Apple Podcasts, YouTube Music, YouTube, and Spotify.

---

On February 28th, the United States and Israel made a decision that many of their allies were unwilling to make: They acted against the abhorrent Iranian regime, a regime that has, since the 1979 Iranian Revolution, defined itself not only by repression at home, but by destabilization, violence, and terrorism abroad.

This was not a reckless move by the U.S. and Israel. It was not a deviation from diplomacy. It was the obvious conclusion one reaches when diplomacy has repeatedly failed.

More than a decade ago, the West pursued a different path. Agreements were signed, concessions were made, and the hope — sincere at best, naive at worst — was that engagement would moderate the regime’s behavior. It didn’t. The regime adapted, absorbed the pressure, and continued advancing its rogue nuclear program, its regional ambitions, its proxy terror groups, and its ideological war against both Israel, America, and the broader West.

There is a simple phrase often attributed to Albert Einstein: doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results is insanity. Whether or not he actually said it, the principle holds. Repeating failed diplomatic strategies while a regime grows more entrenched and more dangerous is not prudence; it is avoidance.

So the strikes were justified, and for many reasons.

They were justified for global stability, because the regime in Iran has spent decades exporting conflict across the Middle East. They were justified for regional balance, because unchecked Iranian expansion has destabilized countries from Lebanon to Yemen to Syria to Iraq. And they were justified, perhaps most importantly, for the Iranian people themselves, who have endured nearly half a century of repression under a system that tolerates neither dissent nor dignity.

There is, in truth, no serious moral argument that these strikes were the wrong move.

And yet, despite this clarity, the U.S. and Israel have found themselves largely alone.

Where is the United Kingdom? Where is France? Where is Germany and Italy? Where are the other members of NATO, the alliance that defines itself as the backbone of Western security?

For the most part: absent.

This absence is not merely a strategic failure; it is a revealing one.

Because, strikingly, several Arab states — countries that have far more immediate exposure to Iranian retaliation — have shown greater alignment, whether quietly or indirectly, with the effort to counter Iran’s regime. These are countries with real skin in the game, real risks, and real consequences. And yet, in many cases, they have demonstrated more strategic clarity than their Western counterparts.

Why?

There are two central explanations, and neither is comfortable.

The first is political fear. Across multiple European societies, segments of the population have adopted an increasingly hostile posture toward Israel — one that often blurs, or outright crosses, the line into hostility toward Jews more broadly. This is not a fringe phenomenon; it has entered mainstream discourse, influenced electoral dynamics, and swallowed political leadership whole.

Supporting Israel — even in a conflict as clear-cut as confronting the Iranian regime — has become, for many leaders, “politically costly.” They cannot be seen by certain segments of their populace as helping or supporting Israel in any way, even when such help or support actually serves their own national and geopolitical interests.

Think about how utterly ridiculous this is: Governments are effectively choosing to undermine their own security priorities and strategic alliances, not because the cause is unjust or the threat is unclear or the capabilities are insufficient, but because acknowledging reality has become less acceptable than appeasing, tolerating, and even enabling Jew-hate.

And so they choose absence.

The second explanation is ideological alignment, at least in theory. In parts of the Western political landscape, a strange coalition has emerged, often described as a convergence between Left-wing factions and Islamists. This alignment produces an unusual but consequential overlap: Israel becomes a shared focal point of opposition, even when the underlying ideologies and motivations differ sharply.

But the key point is not the ideological nuance behind each camp’s reasoning; it is the convergence itself — the fact that Israel, and often Jews more generally, are positioned as a common adversary despite the incompatibility of the worldviews involved.

Therefore, Israel is cast as the aggressor by default, regardless of context, and its adversaries (i.e. the Iranian regime) are granted moral leniency, regardless of their actions. Within this framework, facts become secondary, history becomes optional, and alliances become distorted.

The result is a kind of moral paralysis. Countries that would otherwise stand firmly against authoritarian regimes hesitate — because doing so would place them, however indirectly, on the same side as Israel, as Zionists, as Jews.

Consider the absurdity of that position.

Israel did not initiate this conflict in a vacuum. The hostility from Iran’s regime has been explicit and enduring since 1979. “Death to Israel” is not rhetoric on the margins; it is a slogan embedded in the Islamic Republic of Iran’s identity. Prior to the revolution, Israel and Iran maintained functional, cooperative relations. The Islamists who hijacked Iran obliterated those relations and made the Jewish state public enemy number one.

Then there’s Israel, which has consistently demonstrated a willingness to pursue peace agreements when credible opportunities arise. At the same time, it has developed one of most ethically constrained armies in the world. Israel, by many of the values often emphasized in Left-leaning politics, would seem like a natural ally and even a “model case.” It should be a “fan favorite” by Europeans and other Westerners across wide spectrums of the Left.

But because Israel is the Jewish state — keyword Jewish — it is not.

Make no mistake, this is not about Israel’s “Right-wing government.” The Israelis’ decision to confront Iran militarily has not been confined to one party or one leader in Israel. Instead, it has reflected a broad national consensus across the political spectrum, including opposition figures and centrist and leftist leaders. When a society that is divided on many other issues reaches this level of agreement, it signals something fundamental: This is an Israeli issue, through and through.

To reduce Europe’s lack of assistance and support to a function of “Israel’s Right-wing government” is not analysis; it is deflection. To call one’s country a “liberal democracy” while appeasing, tolerating, and even enabling sustained hostility toward Jews is not liberalism; it is a hollow, dishonest performance of it.

I don’t agree with every word that comes out of the mouth of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but he had something completely unambiguous to say about Europe on Monday evening, as Israel began honoring its Holocaust Remembrance Day. In his speech, Netanyahu said the continent today is “afflicted by deep moral weakness” and “has forgotten so much since the Holocaust.” He accurately accused Europe of “losing control of its identity, of its values, of its responsibility to defend civilization against barbarism.”

He is not pontificating; just listen to the words of Europe’s top leaders themselves.

On February 28th, when the U.S. and Israel jointly launched their attacks against the Iranian regime, UK Prime Minister rushed to issue a statement: “The United Kingdom played no role in these strikes.” French President Emmanuel Macron criticized the military action as a “dangerous” move that “opens a dangerous Pandora’s box.” German Chancellor Friedrich Merz expressed skepticism, stating he was “not convinced” the actions would succeed and arguing that “bombing [the regime] out of existence will in all likelihood fail.”

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez strongly condemned the attacks as a unilateral action that contributes to a “more uncertain and hostile international order” and refused to allow Spanish bases to be used. Italian Defence Minister Guido Crosetto suggested the strikes were not fully consistent with “international law.”

All of this is rhetorical cover. Stripped of the language of make-believe diplomacy and pretend caution, it amounts to a simple refusal: No matter the strategic reality or the moral clarity of this situation, Europe is largely unwilling to support Israel — precisely because it is the Jewish state.

European assistance and support would significantly accelerate pressure on the Iranian regime’s survival. It could very well end the war once and for all, as well as the civilian suffering and instability in the Middle East caused, chiefly, by the Islamic Republic of Iran. Instead, Europe’s hesitation actually emboldens the very regime it publicly condemns. It signals to the Iranians that international condemnation is largely symbolic and carries no real meaningful consequences.

And so we arrive at a more uncomfortable conclusion: The U.S. and Israel have not been able to fully defeat the Iranian regime at least in part because of Europe’s indulgence in antisemitism, even at the expense of their own long-term interests.

That sounds awfully like Nazi Germany, does it not?

---