Earlier this month, Greece and Egypt signed an agreement formally demarcating the border between their respective coastal waters—undoubtedly in response to a similar agreement concluded by Turkey and Libya last November. Most immediately, these efforts reflect Turkey’s attempt to lay claim to natural gas and oil in the parts of the eastern Mediterranean previously claimed by Greece. Ankara and Cairo, meanwhile, are backing competing sides of the Libyan civil war, and thus Athens and Cairo are eager to help one another against a common enemy. As Israel has good relations with Greece and Egypt, and all three—together with Cyprus and Jordan—are part of a regional consortium for sharing offshore energy resources, it naturally inclines toward the Greco-Egyptian side. Gallia Lindenstrauss and Ofir Winter explain:

Egypt sees the demarcation of its maritime boundary with Greece as an additional boost to the flourishing strategic ties between the two states. It seeks to define a red line for Turkish activity in the eastern Mediterranean, after setting a red line in Libya.

Israel must prepare for a variety of potential scenarios in the Greek-Egyptian confrontation with Turkey, including a military confrontation between Turkey and its rivals, an ongoing diplomatic campaign, and pragmatic understandings between the parties. While it is clear which side Israel supports, . . . there are prices for Israel being drawn into the Greek-Turkish conflict and into the conflict in Libya, including the need to dedicate increasing attention to the region at a time of multiple domestic challenges caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, alongside the already existing external challenges. . . . While most Turkish activity in the region is viewed negatively by Jerusalem, only a portion of it actually represents a direct threat to Israel and requires its response.

The creation of hard blocs in the eastern Mediterranean will further aggravate the rivalry between Turkey and Israel. Deeper rifts between the competing camps, which will lead to an accelerated arms race by regional naval and air forces and challenge the existing balance of power, are also not desirable for Israel.

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.