Last weekend’s truck-ramming attack, which killed four Israeli soldiers, comes on the heels of more than a year of stabbings, car-rammings, and occasional shootings known in Arabic as the haba, or eruption. Consisting mainly of attacks by young people that require little advance planning or equipment, this wave of terror has been accompanied by thousands of incidents of mob-style violence. Nonetheless, the hopes of Hamas and some elements within the PLO that the haba will mushroom into a full-fledged third intifada have been unfulfilled, largely because Israel has found ways to respond systematically and without recourse to collective punishment. Violence is now on the decline, writes Ehud Yaari:

Palestinian elites’ efforts to capitalize on or direct the propagators of the haba toward catalyzing a larger and wider movement failed. No doubt that failure had something to do with the divisions and lack of political capacity within West Bank society. But a well-considered Israeli policy certainly played a role as well. The obvious Israeli priority [has been] to prevent a deepening and widening of the haba by avoiding actions that might draw the bulk of the Palestinian population into direct confrontation. . . .

[One component] of Israeli policy in dealing with the haba concerns social media. As Facebook—and to a lesser degree Twitter, YouTube, and other social-media platforms—became the favorite means of communication for would-be assailants and those inciting violence, Israeli intelligence diverted significant additional resources to monitoring the web, rapidly screening the flood of information to identify potential threats. The innovative software employed underwent continuous upgrades and adaptations, including methods to crack encrypted messages commonly used by Hamas and Hizballah operatives. . . .

[Another] component has been selective retaliation. In response to the haba, Israeli security agencies limited retaliatory measures to the immediate environment of the attackers. Family members of attackers, and sometimes their extended clans, were denied work permits in Israel, which are a major source of income throughout the West Bank. Some were also denied trade licenses and permits to enter Israel. Villages that produced several attacks were isolated, and temporarily put under lockdown with military checkpoints on all roads leading to them. . . .

Officers from the six Israeli territorial brigades in the West Bank also kept in constant communication with Palestinian notables, mukhtars (local leaders), and schoolmasters. . . . Gradually, these efforts helped create a powerful if quiet lobby among the Palestinian population against the expansion of the haba into something more pervasively violent. Towns and villages not drawn into the cycle of violence received various economic incentives, so carrots as well as sticks played a role in this highly targeted approach.

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.