President Trump has called a permanent agreement between Israel and the Palestinians “the toughest deal of all,” but Tony Badran notes that it might also be “the least relevant,” or at least close to it. It seems that the Trump administration may realize this—as evidenced, inter alia, by its slowness to unveil its peace plan. Badran explains how, following the end of the cold war, conventional wisdom grossly inflated the importance of the Israel-Palestinian conflict, and welcomes a shift away from such distorted thinking:

U.S. policymakers convinced themselves that the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians was the central dynamic preoccupying and driving the behavior of regional states. Therefore, U.S. policymakers believed, achieving peace between Israel and the Palestinians was the strategic priority in the Middle East. It became a self-evident truth that everything depended on resolving this conflict and on giving the Palestinians their own state.

“Linkage,” [as this notion came to be known], made Israeli peace with the Palestinians (and, at other times, with Syria) the key to the advancement of U.S. interests in the region. It grossly inflated the importance not just of the Palestinians but also of the fractured Levant. Moreover, linkage made U.S. policy, as well as increased Israeli cooperation with U.S.-allied Arab states, hostage to the maximalist demands of the most radical elements of the region, namely Iran and the Assad regime, which continued the historical practice of using the Palestinians as instruments to further their regional objectives.

From a somewhat different vantage point, the Obama administration also viewed the Palestinians as a useful instrument in a wider geostrategic play. The Obama administration used the peace process, especially the issue of Israeli settlement building, to pressure Israel as then-President Obama realigned American interests in the Middle East with Iran.

Instead [of such efforts], the path forward for the U.S. is to continue to strengthen Israel’s position as a security pillar in the region while shoring up its Arab allies and fostering closer cooperation between them and the Israelis against Iran. . . . Progress in peace talks with the Palestinians is a matter of far less concern.

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.