On Thursday, the Israeli attorney general Avichai Mandelblit announced his decision to pursue an indictment of Prime Minister Netanyahu, following a nearly three-year-long investigation into corruption charges. The announcements comes after both Netanyahu and his rival, Benny Gantz, failed to form a governing coalition, raising the possibility that there will be a third election. John Podhoretz comments:

The indictments are sketchy. Two of them involve supposed schemes to get favorable press coverage, neither of which went anywhere. The third involves the idea that he was bribed by longtime fixer Arnon Milchan with cigars and champagne.

In a classic political Rorschach test, you can view these as horrible examples of deep corruption. But, generally speaking, many if not most people who do so have personal or ideological beefs against Netanyahu and see all this as the way to get him out of power. Or you can see them as an act of revenge against Netanyahu by one of the almost countless number of Israeli political figures who were once allied with him.

It’s more than merely conceivable that Netanyahu can beat these charges in a court of law, but can he defend himself and remain prime minister at the same time? [Meanwhile], Israel is girding itself for a possible two-front war against Iranian proxies.

Bibi would seem to be the best person to be at the helm at this moment. But statutorily, that might not be the case. Given that he has been unable to form a coalition—twice—he is effectively running a caretaker government. It’s far from clear what specific claim he has on the prime minister’s office given that fact—or that, given what has happened, he has an argument that he needs protection from prosecution because he is the legitimately elected leader. The horrible fact is that Israel might need him more than ever, but it won’t be able to have him.

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.