In the wake of the terror attacks in Paris, some Israeli politicians have called on French Jews to move to Israel. Critics argued that it was not the place of Israel’s leaders to make such an appeal and, furthermore, that it is in Israel’s interest to have the continued support of Diaspora communities. Taking a more nuanced view, Yaakov Amidror stipulates that, on the one hand, Israel’s “situation would be better in every way if twice as many Jews lived” there:

It would be easier to deal with internal issues such as preserving the state’s Jewish character. It would be simpler to develop the economy, since it is hard to base a national economy on just eight million citizens. A potential enlistment pool twice as large would make it easier to deal with security problems, to name just a few examples. . . .

In addition, Israel must not base its relationship with the U.S. or with other democratic countries on the “Jewish connection” alone. It is better for future relations . . . if it is clear that the relationship is based on mutual interests and on the support that stems from shared values, which Israel promotes in a challenging region.

On the other hand, Amidror writes that “Of course, as long as Jews live in those countries, mutual involvement must be nurtured seriously and the connection between those communities and Israel must be strengthened.”

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.