Benjamin Netanyahu visited Moscow earlier this month and met with Vladimir Putin to discuss the situation in Syria—his fourth such visit since 2015. By now, argue Zvi Magen and Udi Dekel, Russia has decisively tipped the scales in the Syrian civil war, successfully ensuring that the Assad regime will remain in place; what remains to be decided is whether, and how, the country will be divided once the fighting comes to an end. This question was most likely foremost on Netanyahu’s mind during his last meeting with the Russian president:

For its part, Iran still wants to see an undivided Syria under Alawite rule, and is therefore unhappy with what seems to be Russia’s policy in practice, i.e., the unofficial establishment of a type of federation in Syria that recognizes the country’s internal balance of power and grants a form of autonomy in regions having a dominant local power (e.g., the Kurdish province in the north or the Sunni enclave around Idlib). . . . At this point, Iran is cooperating with Russia, but is at the same time helping Assad expand his control of other regions; it also continues to provide arms to its key [military force in the region], Hizballah.

It is not entirely clear to what degree Russia is willing to take Iranian wishes into account, and there are points of disagreement between the two countries. Nonetheless, . . . Iran [has] provided the boots on the ground by mobilizing the main order of battle that allowed the pro-Assad coalition’s victories. Moreover, Russia has a broader range of interests tying it to Iran (energy, arms sales, trade, and more). . . .

[During Netanyahu’s most recent meeting with Putin], Israel stressed its displeasure with Iran’s dominance in Syria and the fact that Iranian forces and proxies seem destined to remain in Syria in any future arrangement. Moreover, Israel reiterated its red line: preventing the deployment of Iranian forces and the forces of its proxies in southern Syria near the Israeli border. This would seem to be the background for the March 16-17 aerial attack deep in Syria on a storage site serving Hizballah and/or forces subordinate to Iran. . . .

Russia views Israel as a regional power capable of affecting developments in the Syrian arena. It has proved [its desire to] avoid military friction with Israel . . . and is not opposed to strategic coordination with Israel about the future of Syria. . . . The big question now is to what extent Israel can . . . maintain its red lines and prevent the buildup of Hizballah and other Iranian proxies in Syria and the deployment of these forces near the border in the Golan Heights, without destabilizing its special relations with Moscow and without causing wider escalation in the northern arena.

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.