Two weeks ago, Prince Charles arrived in Israel for the funeral of Shimon Peres, after which he privately, if not secretly, went to the Mount of Olives to visit the grave of his grandmother, Princess Alice of Battenberg—who, among other things, had sheltered Jews in Nazi-occupied Greece. This was Charles’ second time in the country, the first being for the funeral of Yitzḥak Rabin, but neither he nor his mother has ever paid an official state visit. The editors of the Jerusalem Post urge the royal family to reconsider its apparent policy:

It was alleged . . . that the royal family has refrained from visiting [Princess Alice’s resting place] because of its location in the eastern part of Jerusalem, and its desire to remain neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The fact that the British consulate is located in eastern Jerusalem has never been cited as a danger to British neutrality. Similarly, the Commonwealth Cemetery on Mount Scopus, housing the remains of British soldiers from World War I, regularly commemorates their sacrifice. And as far as neutrality goes, Charles had no problem attending the Peres funeral on Mount Herzl, which the Palestinian narrative lays claim to no less than to Tel Aviv and the rest of the “occupation.” . . .

[I]t is strange that in 68 years, the royal family has not visited Israel in an official capacity—this despite the long history the Jewish people shares with the United Kingdom.

The royal family will have an opportunity soon to make amends. Next year, Israel and the UK will mark the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, which supported the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. Balfour wrote the letter in the name of “His Majesty’s Government.” After 100 years, it is time for the current majesties to show where they stand.

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.