Within a few months of Yasir Arafat’s death in 2004, he was succeeded by Mahmoud Abbas as the head of two interlocking institutions: the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and the Palestinian Authority (PA). Abbas further consolidated his power in 2009 by taking over a third position formerly held by Arafat: that of chairman of Fatah, the dominant party in the PLO. Unlike his predecessor, Abbas has “systematically undermined the emergence of strong political figures that could be potential successors,” explains Ghaith al-Omari. Abbas, elected to the PA presidency for a four-year term fifteen years ago, is now eighty-four-year-old, has suffered from health problems, and does not appear to have any plans to retire. Omari continues:

Part of what enabled a smooth succession after Arafat’s death was the relative strength of key Palestinian political institutions, particularly Fatah and the PLO. Today, these institutions are undergoing serious crises, which will limit their ability to play a stabilizing role during the coming succession.

Fatah, the PA leadership, and the PLO may have an interest in a swift, orderly succession akin to Abbas’s own ascendance following Arafat’s death, this is far from certain. In his efforts to eliminate dissent, Abbas has prevented the emergence of strong political figures who could become obvious successors. [Likewise], the United States has an interest in an orderly transfer of power but holds few tools to effect this outcome. . . . Ultimately, however, the conduct and outcome of the succession contest will depend on internal Palestinian decisions.

Meanwhile, Ehud Yaari adds, there is a growing competition among several vaguely defined factions to place themselves in a position to determine Abba’s successor:

[There have been] strenuous efforts by some contenders to obtain the allegiance of armed groups from the myriad squads of the Tanzim—the organization of [armed] Fatah cadres—in West Bank refugee camps, the countryside, and the poorer suburbs. Numerous cases of violent friction between Tanzim groups allied with rival politicians have been contained at an early stage. Around Nablus, however, fatalities have occurred in clashes between PA security forces and local gangs.

It is worth noting that the PA has never embarked on a systematic campaign to disarm these groups, which sprang up as a result of Arafat’s secret move to distribute weapons to Tanzim activists in 1997. The Tanzim groups possess an abundance of guns, and the security forces are usually reluctant to confront those possessing them. It is [also] important to stress that the competition reflects personal and factional interests more than significant political differences.

In short, conclude both Yaari and Omari, the power vacuum resulting from Abbas’s death could lead to instability or chaos, and perhaps a resumption of terror.

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.