The recent executive order suspending the U.S. refugee-admission program allows exceptions for members of religious minorities facing persecution in their home countries. It also instructs the Departments of State and Homeland Security, when the program resumes, “to prioritize refugee claims made by individuals on the basis of religious-based persecution, provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.” Although he finds the overall order flawed “on policy and moral grounds,” Samuel Tadros argues that it was correct in this regard:

[W]hile all communities in the path of Islamic State may be forced to flee, the refuge opportunities available differ significantly based on one’s ethnic and religious background. A Sunni fleeing Bashar al-Assad’s butchery may find a home in a neighboring Sunni country, or in other Sunni territory in Syria, but where can a Yazidi go? Surely not to Baghdad, where he would be persecuted. Is Turkey, which persecutes its own Christian population, supposed to be the choice destiny for Syria or Iraq’s Christians? Do we expect Assyrian Christians to be comfortable going to Kurdish areas? Moreover, even when/if Islamic State is defeated, the likelihood of return diminishes for these religious minorities. Does one seriously expect Christians to be able to return to Mosul, where their homes have likely been occupied by others, and where many of their neighbors stood silently watching as Islamic State targeted them? The Jewish experience in Poland following the Holocaust is a reminder of what awaits these communities.

Some may point to Jordan as a welcoming place for these minorities, and even more so to Lebanon. But in Jordan, which should be lauded for its welcoming of Syrian refugees, as in any other Arabic speaking country, they will be permanent refugees, forever housed in the camps with no future. A quick visit to a Palestinian refugee camp in Lebanon would enlighten anyone to what that life entails, as Arabic-speaking countries insisted on keeping Palestinians there to use as a bargaining chip with Israel. . . .

Will a prioritization policy, however, make matters worse for these communities, [as some have argued]? Will they be accused of being a fifth column? As an Arabic proverb says “it does not hurt a sheep to be skinned after being slaughtered.” The fate of a Yazidi girl running from Islamic State will not be made worse if she is perceived to be a prioritized refugee. Religious minorities in the Levant are being annihilated by Islamic State. Nothing worse can befall them.

Regardless of one’s views on how many refugees the United States should accept, the reality is that it will not accept all those who seek to come. A prioritization process is natural and hardly novel, and while one that bans people based on their religion is morally repugnant, one that prioritizes the more vulnerable, even on the basis of [religion], is not.

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.