In 1990, Congress passed a law stating that the U.S. would not pay dues to any UN organization that granted recognition to a Palestinian state, absent a negotiated settlement with Israel. The law was triggered when the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) recognized such a state in 2011. The State Department is now asking Congress to waive the prohibition—without repealing the law itself—and allow the transfer of funds to UNESCO. Elliott Abrams urges the legislature to hold firm:

[So far, the law has] worked: since the U.S. move in 2011, other key UN organizations have not followed UNESCO down the PLO’s preferred path. . . .

[T]he United States was out of UNESCO entirely from 1984 to 2003. Do you recall losing a lot of sleep over this? Can you name important world events that were affected by the American absence? [Furthermore], the administration’s argument that this is a UNESCO-only waiver that will not affect other bodies is ridiculous. Every other UN agency will see who blinked: not the UN but the Americans. The deterrent force of the 1990 law that threatens to cut off U.S. funding will be gutted.

The administration’s answer is to combine its UNESCO waiver with another new provision saying the waiver would lapse if the Palestinians get full membership in any other UN body. This is senseless. If we collapse on UNESCO, it will be assumed in the UN that we eventually will collapse on any other UN agency that admits “Palestine.” If it is important to stop UN agencies from admitting “Palestine,” we have the ideal tool in the 1990 law and should simply enforce it.

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.