Such is the paradoxical conclusion of Adam Ferziger, author of a new book on American Orthodox Judaism in the past half-century. In an exchange with Alan Brill, he writes:

Among the generation of American Orthodox rabbis that emerged in the early to mid- 20th century, there was a strong feeling that Orthodoxy had to try to appeal to as many Jews as possible. At a time when few congregations existed that could boast of a critical mass of fully observant individuals, it was obvious that Orthodoxy would become obsolete if it only catered to the pious. . . .

Modern Orthodoxy’s Americanized, college-educated graduates were dispatched to communities throughout the country with the goal of creating Orthodox congregations that would offer religious services to the entire Jewish population. With this attitude in mind, some even walked a denominational tightrope by accepting pulpits in synagogues with mixed [male and female] seating. . . .

By contrast, the ḥaredi world was created by survivors and remnants of the leadership of the Lithuanian yeshivas and ḥasidic dynasties who arrived around World War II and directed their efforts toward recreating the institutions and lifestyles that had been destroyed. Fearful of the seductive power of the treyfe medinah (unkosher land)—which to their minds had tainted the already-established Modern Orthodox [community]—they set up enclaves in which they could regain their former strength and vitality. . . Their main objective . . . was to create a community devoted to Torah learning and or/ḥasidic teachings [and] a cadre of rabbis and teachers who could service the needs of recently imperiled communities of the faithful.

More recently, a role reversal has taken place. While non-ḥasidic ḥaredi yeshivas continue to emphasize theoretical talmudic study over practical rabbinics, . . . they . . . have increasingly developed and supported auxiliary programs dedicated to training rabbis (and their wives) so that they can reach out far beyond Orthodox boundaries. Yeshiva University, [the flagship institution of Modern Orthodoxy], meanwhile, focuses most of its energies on in-reach—servicing the highly specific intellectual and ideological needs of its natural constituents. . . .

Two extraordinary events demonstrate something important about Israel’s most fervent adversaries. One was a speech given at something called The People’s Forum (funded generously by Goldman Sachs), which stated, “When the state of Israel is finally destroyed and erased from history, that will be the single most important blow we can give to destroying capitalism and imperialism.”

The suggestion that this tiny state is the linchpin of a global, centuries-old phenomenon like capitalism goes well beyond anything resembling rational criticism. Even if Israel were guilty of genocide, apartheid, and oppression—which of course it is not—it would not follow that its destruction would help end capitalism or imperialism.

The other was an anti-Israel protest that took place in front of New York City’s Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, deemed “complicit” in Israel’s evils. At organizers’ urging, participants shouted their slogans at kids in the cancer ward, who were watching from the windows. Given Hamas’s indifference toward the lives of Gazan children, such callousness toward non-Palestinian children from Hamas’s Western allies shouldn’t be surprising. The protest—like the abovementioned speech—deliberately conveyed the message that Israel is the ultimate evil and its destruction the ultimate good, cancer patients be damned.

The fact that Israel’s adversaries are almost comically perverse does not mean that they can be dismissed. If its allies fail to understand the obsessive and irrational hatred that it faces, they cannot effectively help it defend itself.