The American decision to remove its troops from Syria benefits Iran to Israel’s detriment, writes Yaakov Amidror, but there is also a potential upside for the Jewish state:

Israel must operate on the . . . assumption that has always been the foundation of [its] defense doctrine: that Israel will defend itself. This is the country’s raison d’être as well as the outcome of geopolitical realities. . . .

With respect to [Israel’s] battles against Iran, there will be no change after the withdrawal of American forces, for the simple reason that the American forces have not taken part in these battles. The U.S. did not even once act against the Iranian war machine that is emerging in Syria. All U.S. forces and efforts were invested in the elimination of Islamic State (IS). . . . [Nevertheless], the withdrawal of American forces will immediately open up new maneuvering possibilities for the Iranians, which were previously denied them due to the presence of the important American base in the region on the main transportation route connecting Iraq and Syria, close to the Jordanian border.

The Iranian dream of a land corridor from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean which will serve their logistic needs will quickly be realized after the American withdrawal. Such a move will make it much easier for Iran to transport equipment and forces by land, and therein lies its importance both to Hizballah and to the project of building an Iranian military infrastructure in Syria. . . . There is no doubt that this will pose a greater challenge to Israel. . . .

From Israel’s point of view, [however], there are [also] two possible benefits arising from the president’s decision. Once the U.S. has left the region, there will be one fewer player that Israel must consider when planning its operations in Syria. In general, an equation with fewer variables is easier to understand and deal with. . . . The withdrawal of the U.S. leaves Israel as the strongest and most stable country in the region and the only serious player with which the main Arab countries can cooperate in the confrontation with Iran and IS. The extent to which Israel’s position is strengthened as a result of the vacuum left by the Americans is difficult to assess, but the potential benefits are significant.

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.