In the aftermath of Hungary’s recent elections, international commentary has once again rushed to interpret what the political shift means for Jews and for Israel.
A recent opinion piece published by The Jerusalem Post suggests that Israel may have lost a close ally in Hungary, while also raising the possibility that such a loss could ultimately prove beneficial, given the controversial nature of that alliance.
This is, in principle, a legitimate argument. But it is also incomplete.
Whether change becomes a loss or an opportunity is never automatic. It depends on what is done next.
To understand Hungary today, one must begin with a distinction that is often overlooked in international discourse:
There is a difference between the politicized use of historical memory and the lived reality of Jewish life.
In recent years, much of the criticism directed at Hungary – particularly from progressive Jewish and international circles – has focused on symbolic disputes about the past: monuments, campaigns, rhetoric, and competing historical narratives.
Jewish history in Hungary marked by Trauma
These are not unimportant matters. Jewish history in Hungary – as in much of Europe – is marked by profound trauma, and memory must be preserved with seriousness and respect.
Yet when the past becomes continuously instrumentalized – when it is used as a political tool to shape or challenge national identity from the outside – it can become counterproductive.
In Hungary, this has often taken the form of a well-intentioned but ultimately alienating effort to “sensitize” society through moral pressure.
In several prominent cases, it was precisely this discourse that insisted on framing political issues in explicitly Jewish terms, amplifying their salience and creating the very tensions it sought to expose.
A telling example was the so-called “Soros campaign.” While many – including myself – found elements of that campaign distasteful, its framing as an inherently antisemitic phenomenon was not self-evident in the Hungarian public context.
Yet it was precisely through persistent international and domestic insistence on interpreting it through a Jewish lens that it became widely perceived as such – thus elevating its significance and deepening divisions in ways that were neither necessary nor constructive.
What might have remained peripheral became central – because it was made so.
This dynamic does not strengthen Jewish life. It risks trapping it in a cycle of symbolic confrontation with diminishing returns.
There is, however, another way to evaluate reality – one grounded not in discourse, but in outcomes.
Two questions, in my view, are decisive:
Can Jews live openly and securely as Jews?
And does the country maintain a constructive relationship with the State of Israel?
Measured by these criteria, Hungary over the past 15 years presents a clear picture.
Jewish life has flourished – visibly, confidently, and securely. Synagogues have reopened, institutions have expanded, and Jewish identity can be expressed publicly without fear.
At the same time, Hungary has been one of Israel’s most consistent allies in Europe, often standing by it in international forums even when doing so was politically inconvenient.
These realities did not emerge by chance. They were built through sustained effort, mutual recognition, and a conscious decision to prioritize cooperation over confrontation.
This has been the guiding approach of Chabad in Hungary (which operates as a community federation comprising multiple educational institutions, 14 synagogues, and a wide network of Jewish institutions under the name EMIH – Association of Hungarian Jewish Communities).
Rather than amplifying every symbolic dispute or engaging in accusatory narratives, we focused on what carries real consequence: the day-to-day security and vitality of Jewish life, and the cultivation of a working, respectful relationship with the country’s leadership.
This is not a passive stance. It is an active strategy.
And this is where the current moment requires clarity.
If one believes – as the opinion published by the Post suggests – that a political transition might create an opportunity to recalibrate Israel’s position, then the conclusion cannot be merely observational. It must be practical.
Opportunities do not materialize on their own. They are built through dialogue, through engagement, and through the patient work of establishing trust.
This is precisely what has been done over the past decade and a half.
And it is precisely what must continue now.
The question is not whether Hungary’s relationship with Israel will remain identical. Political landscapes evolve. The question is whether those who care about that relationship will invest the same level of effort in sustaining it.
Experience suggests that this is possible.
The Hungarian Jewish community – one of the oldest and most deeply rooted in Europe – has learned, often through difficult history, that its role is not to stand outside political reality and comment on it, but to engage with it responsibly. Not to ignore the past, but not to allow it to be used in ways that undermine the present.
The recent elections mark a change in leadership. They do not erase the deeper transformation that has taken place within Hungarian society.
Jewish life today is not defined by fear.
Israel is not treated as a liability.
These are achievements worth preserving.
For Jewish communities – and for Israel – the lesson is clear: not every narrative that dominates headlines reflects underlying reality, and not every shift in politics determines the future.
What matters is not only how situations are described – but how they are shaped.
And that, ultimately, remains in our hands.
The writer is the chief rabbi of EMIH – Association of Hungarian Jewish Communities.
Source:
www.jpost.com
