In June, a U.S. court of appeals ruled on the case of Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, in which the family of Naftali Fraenkel—a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen who was kidnapped and murdered by Hamas in 2014—sued Iran and Syria over their support for the terrorist group. According to federal statute, American citizens, like Fraenkel’s mother and siblings, are allowed to sue foreign governments for their role in committing and assisting acts of terror. The federal district court that first heard their case found in the Fraenkels’ favor, but it awarded them a sum far smaller than what precedent would dictate. Michal Navoth explains:

[The district court] determined that Rachel Fraenkel and her six surviving children had provided satisfactory evidence that Iran and Syria, two state sponsors of terrorism, are legally responsible for the abduction and murder of Naftali, because of the longstanding material support and resources provided to Hamas by Iran and Syria that allowed Hamas to flourish as a terrorist organization.

The evidence demonstrated that during the time leading up to the abduction and murder, the two countries provided funds, weapons, and training to [Hamas]. The district court noted that although no evidence has been given “directly linking a weapon or a dollar provided by Iran and Syria to the kidnapping and murder of Naftali,” both countries were hostile to Israel and knew of Hamas’s tactics and ideological goals and supported its efforts. The hostage-taking and murder were foreseeable consequences of Iran and Syria’s support and assistance to Hamas. . . .

Not only did the district court deny the motion for reconsideration of [the amount awarded], but in its decision on reconsideration the district court also stated that the Fraenkels accepted the risk by living in a community built across the Green Line [that divides the West Bank from the rest of Israel], and sending Naftali for high school in Gush Etzion, which is about six miles from Hebron, a predominantly Palestinian city. In so determining, the court imposed responsibility on innocent parents of an innocent victim, who was abducted and murdered by terrorists.

Although the appeals court eventually reversed the decision, the fact that a judge could determine that Jewish blood is worth less on the West Bank is a troubling one.

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.