Since the tenure of Aharon Barak as its chief justice, Israel’s highest court has arrogated to itself broad powers to overturn legislation and intervene in various aspects of public life, based only on its evaluation of the “reasonableness” of any particular measure. To David M. Weinberg, the concept of “reasonableness” has become an “authoritarian” tool that “allows high-court justices to apply elastically their own sensibilities; to re-engineer Israeli society—in their enlightened image, of course.” He notes how arbitrary this standard has become in recent cases, and its implications for those cases that the court will soon hear:

It was found “unreasonable” that Religious Zionist Jews operate acceptance committees to maintain distinctly homogenous small communities. . . . But it is “reasonable” for Bedouin and Arabs to operate acceptance committees because they are considered “distinct,” and apparently more kosher, communities by the court.

So it was two weeks ago when the court struck down the latest version of an immigration/deportation law pertaining to infiltrators and refugees. So it may be when the court considers a petition to outlaw the new position of “alternate prime minister,” [the creation of which made the current governing coalition possible].

So it may be when the court rules on the historic Nation-State Law of 2018, which was passed as a “Basic Law”—meaning that it was meant as constitutional legislation [that] the court has no right to touch. Nevertheless, Chief Justice Esther Ḥayut has convened an eleven-justice panel to judge the law’s “reasonableness.”

So it may be when the court rules soon on a petition from a group of extremist professors to terminate all government funding for separate-sex ḥaredi college programs. Accepting the petition would be a disaster for the slow but measurable movement of ḥaredi men and women into the workforce—which is crucial for the Israeli economy and the future of our society.

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.