While Islamic State (IS) is rapidly losing ground in both Iraq and Syria, and its crucial strongholds of Raqqa and Mosul seem poised to fall, its animating Salafist-jihadist doctrines are as strong as ever. Already, IS has spawned affiliates from Southeast Asia to Africa and has coordinated and inspired terrorist attacks in the West. To make matters worse, al-Qaeda has been biding its time and preparing to stage a comeback. Yoram Schweitzer argues that the American-led coalition must ensure stability in order to prevent Islamic State’s resurgence:

Despite the bitter personal and inter-organizational conflict between Islamic State and its partners on the one hand and al-Qaeda and its affiliates on the other, and the disputes concerning the correct strategy for realizing their shared vision of establishing the Islamic caliphate—as expressed in venomous rhetorical exchanges and sometimes also in violent clashes between the two sides—what they have in common is still much greater than what separates them. Furthermore, it is likely that as the international pressure against IS and al-Qaeda increases, the chances of a rapprochement between them will also grow.

The deaths of [some] Islamic State leaders . . . raises the possibility that all the organizations in the Salafist-jihadist camp will combine forces. Therefore, although a formal reunion between Islamic State and al-Qaeda appears unrealistic, local ad-hoc cooperation between groups and terrorist networks, and even more, movement of operatives or organized units across and within the various groups identified with this ideology, can certainly be expected. . . .

[It is the likely] intention of the Salafist-jihadist movement to suspend the caliphate idea temporarily and replace it with the establishment of “emirates” in territories where the movement [already] has a presence and there are existing problems with national government structures. Therefore, in addition to a focused military campaign against organizations, networks, and activists who are part of this ideological movement, action—involving close international cooperation in political, economic, diplomatic, legal, and educational aspects—should be taken in order to prevent the threat of terrorism by this movement from reappearing and expanding.

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.