Hungary's EU minister to 'Post': 'If we lose our Jewish communities, we lose our European identity'

Budapest – During the last six months, Dr. János Bóka, a 46-year-old lawyer and EU and international law expert, had the very delicate mission of managing the rotating Hungarian presidency of the EU.

Relations between the European Union and the Hungarian government, led now for 14 consecutive years by the national conservative Viktor Orban, have become very explosive. Many in Brussels and other European capitals were extremely worried that Orban would use the presidency to promote undemocratic and authoritarian ideas and convictions.

In such an atmosphere, Bóka – a descendant of Holocaust survivors who discovered his Jewish origins by chance, looking through some old books in the attic of his grandparents – was given an almost impossible mission when he was promoted in summer 2023 to serve as Hungary’s minister for European Union affairs.

But now that the mission is almost completed and Hungary is preparing to turn over on December 31 the EU presidency to its neighbor, Poland, Bóka can look back at what he has achieved and feel content. He even qualifies his country’s presidency term as a big success.

One of the important achievements of the Hungarian EU presidency was the EU Council’s adoption last October of a declaration on “fostering Jewish life and fighting against antisemitism,” highlighting high levels of antisemitism across the EU.

In an interview with The Jerusalem Post, Bóka warned that the threat to Jewish life in Europe, resulting from rising antisemitism in the Western countries of the EU is a threat to Europe as we know it today, and that the antisemitic attacks undermine European identity and culture.

In what way is this declaration different from other joint documents adopted by the EU on these matters?

There are two important elements to consider regarding this declaration. The first one was the timing: It was adopted in the middle of October, a year after the brutal and unprecedented terrorist attacks against Israel. It was very important for the Hungarian presidency to show that the EU is still committed to fighting antisemitism and protecting Jewish life. It was a sign of solidarity with Israel and the people of Israel.

The second important consideration was, as mentioned in the title of the declaration, fostering Jewish life in the EU. Fighting antisemitism is something that has been constantly on the EU’s agenda with varying degrees of activity, but the issue of fostering Jewish life is a new element brought by the Hungarian government.

The idea behind this approach is that our responsibility lies first and foremost with our Jewish communities in Europe. These communities are part of our European heritage. Without these communities, there is no Europe and no European culture.

I believe that we need to make these Jewish communities feel welcome in Europe. We need to guarantee their safety and security [and] provide a welcoming and enabling environment in which these Jewish communities can flourish.

By strengthening these communities and making them prosperous, we also combat antisemitism. The best way to combat antisemitism is to work on fostering Jewish life in Europe. This is the new approach and new point of view that we wanted to reflect in this declaration.

Is the explosion of antisemitism that we have experienced mainly in the Western countries of the EU since October 7 an existential threat to Jewish life?

I believe so. More importantly, I believe that Jewish communities all over Europe share this concern as well. The new and reinforced antisemitism in some parts of Europe, which is connected to the ongoing demographic and social changes in Western Europe, creates a new challenge and I would even say a new threat to the security of Jewish communities. We need to be aware of it and address it directly.

We have seen waves of antisemitism in Europe linked to conflict with Israel in the last 20 years. Many Europeans don’t see a connection between antisemitism and anti-Israelism. Will this viewpoint change?

We do our best to keep this very important issue on the agenda. I believe that the nature of antisemitism is constantly changing. The fundamental notion of antisemitism is looking for new and more contemporary hosts on which it can exist and from which it can spread. The latest are anti-Zionism and anti-Israelism.

The international community makes it very easy to spread this new version of antisemitism by giving it a clout of legitimacy and presenting these antisemitic overtures in the context of international law and cooperation. This makes it easier to incite antisemitic feelings.

Is there any practical way, apart from declarations and joint statements, to fight antisemitism, or is it a lost battle?

I think that it is our moral duty and obligation to fight antisemitism in all its forms by using all the tools that are at our disposal.

I also believe that the best way to tackle antisemitism is not to transform it into a legal or procedural issue, nor to transform it into political debates between different ideologies.

My proposal is to put Jewish communities in the focus of our activities. They are the reason we are engaged in all these activities. Again, the best way to combat antisemitism in Europe is to make sure that the Jewish communities prosper, flourish, and feel welcome.

Do you have the feeling that the antisemitic and anti-Israeli explosion that we have witnessed mainly in the West since October 7 is actually masking an intifada against the West?

If we lose our Jewish communities, we will lose our European identity. Europe will no longer be Europe. It will become something else.

By creating such a situation, those behind the attacks make it easier to dismantle European civilization and identity step-by-step, brick by brick. At the end of the day, this will pave the way for a fundamental restructuring of the European civilization in such a manner that it will no more resemble the Europe that we know.

You are an expert on EU and international law. How do you see the political weaponization of international law and international justice institutions, especially in the case of Israel?

I see that these international legal tools and institutions are being weaponized against the State of Israel. I believe that this strategy has been proven to be successful to an extent, and it will be used more actively and aggressively in the future. This undermines international law and international institutions. In the long term, it will be counterproductive because at a time when these legal instruments and institutions will be really needed, they will no longer have the international legitimacy and support they need.

Do you think these legal institutions have been weaponized to fight Western democracy?

I wouldn’t go that far. However, this approach makes the values upon which Europe is founded relative. Therefore, it’s undermining the social structure that makes us European. If one equates a sovereign state [with] functioning democratic institutions with a terrorist organization, such as Hamas, then you misinterpret and delegitimize the very basis of a democratic society.

Now that EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell – who was accused of antisemitism by European Jewish organizations – has left office, can EU-Israeli relations be normalized again?

I am cautiously optimistic in this regard. I must also say that there are some political determinations in EU member states that can’t be disregarded. The position of the European Council is determined by the states and not by individual personalities, occupying certain positions within the institutions. Demographic and social changes create political determinations and context, which have become irreversible in certain member states, and this will not change. This creates the most important challenge for a meaningful reset of the relations between Israel and the EU.

Why doesn’t Hungary break from EU consensus and recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, just as some member states broke consensus and recognized a Palestinian state?

I believe that the EU does not and should not have a common position on the recognition of any international legal entities.

When it comes to single and unilateral moves by member states on other aspects, I think that the most important consideration for Hungary is to make sure that the possibility for regional stability remains, and no more problems, tensions, and instability are created, which would make it more difficult to manage the situation in the Middle east. This is the primary consideration of Hungary besides being one of the strongest allies and supporters of Israel.

How would you sum up the Hungarian presidency of the EU? Does the EU understand better today the Hungarian positions?

Our presidency can be characterized by three words: “characteristic,” “active,” and “strategic.”

It was characteristic because it reflected the fundamentals of our EU policies – how we see the EU, the challenges and relations between the member states and the European institutions, even though our policy is not necessarily shared by all.

Our presidency has been active since we [put forward] a number of proposals and initiatives.

Our presidency was strategic in a sense that even though we managed a number of legislative files, we focused on strategic discussions in order to set the path for the European institutions – on the competitiveness of the EU, the future and cohesion of the agricultural policy, the future of the European security and defense so that we can take more responsibility for our own security. At the same time we managed a number of very sensitive files and made progress on them – the Schengen enlargement to Romania and Bulgaria or the accession process of the Western Balkans.

All in all, I believe the presidency of Hungary was a success, and there is an increasing understanding of our motives and objectives, as well as an increasing support for these objectives, among the European citizens.