In the past few days news stories have emerged that the U.S. plans to sell the F-35 fighter jet—its most advanced military aircraft—to the United Arab Emirates and that Benjamin Netanyahu has objected to the sale. Less reliable reports have suggested that the White House had promised the jets to the UAE as an inducement to make peace with Israel, or that the deal between Abu Dhabi and Jerusalem is now somehow in jeopardy. In Israel, some pundits are even claiming that the sale undermines the Jewish state’s “qualitative military edge” over its Middle Eastern neighbors, which Washington has promised to help it maintain. Ariel Kahana argues that this supposed controversy, in fact, amounts to little:

[American] presidents and legislators have always helped sell advanced weaponry to the world, including Arab countries. Israel has objected, to no avail. In 1980, for example, the U.S. sold Egypt the F-16 fighter jet, the most advanced in the world at the time. Egypt was our biggest enemy. Only seven years earlier, in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, it had done serious damage to our air force. Israel had signed a peace treaty with Egypt only a year before the sale, and it hadn’t even been implemented [fully]. Still, it was clear to leaders in Israel and Washington that the risk—which was much greater than the case of the UAE—was worth it. So what is all the current fuss about?

The bottom line is that the U.S. hasn’t yet decided whether to sell the advanced aircraft to the UAE. . . . Second, even if the UAE eventually gets the sought-after stealth fighter, it won’t set any precedent. Worse enemies of Israel, who lie closer to our borders, have received more advanced aircraft, and no one here was affected. Therefore, we should keep things in proportion this time as well.

Third, the evidence dispels any base for claims about “stealth fighters in exchange for peace.” . . . There is no deal for the U.S. to sell the Emiratis the F-35. [And] if one is reached, it will have nothing to do with Israel, and in any case, it would present little risk in comparison to the deals of the past. So we can turn off the alarm.

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.