The wisdom of numerous pundits states that the upcoming Israeli elections are a referendum on Benjamin Netanyahu. Not so, writes Elliott Abrams; they are a referendum on his chief rival.

Netanyahu has served as prime minister for ten years and been in politics for decades. He is a known quantity, and his poll numbers are not good. As Tony Blair and Margaret Thatcher found out, ten years is a long time, and one builds up critics, opponents, and enemies. The public gets tired. There are almost inevitably scandals. A December survey “asked respondents whether they want Netanyahu to remain prime minister after the vote. Sixty percent said no.”

So why does this not mean that Netanyahu is done for, and that Isaac (“Buji”) Herzog will be the next PM? Because Israeli voters do not trust him—yet. Recent polls have shown that between 18 and 24 percent of Israelis are undecided—the swing voters who will decide the election. Though Herzog is fifty-four years old, is the son of Israel’s sixth president, has been in the Knesset since 2003, and has served as a cabinet minister several times, he’s not a well-known quantity. He has led his Labor party only since November 2013. One year ago, a third of Israeli voters knew little about him, and even now 20 percent “say they don’t have an opinion of him or have never heard of him,” according to the Times of Israel. That number will continue to decline as the election nears, but it is amazingly high for the man leading the main opposition party.

Israel is beset with security challenges: Iran and Hizballah have troops fighting in Syria, Islamic State spreads nearby, Iran’s nuclear-weapons program is advancing, Hamas runs Gaza, and of course the administration in Washington is hostile to Israel while accommodating to Iran. For undecided Israeli voters the question is not “do I love Bibi,” it is “can I trust Buji to protect this country?”

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.