President Trump has stated his intention of bringing American troops home from Syria “very quickly” after Islamic State’s defeat, but it is not yet clear what this means in practical terms. Abdelillah Bendaoudi cautions that declaring victory too soon could pave the way for the group’s resurgence:

Currently, Islamic State (IS) is merely going through a transition period, shedding the territorial aspirations that were once part of its identity. Toppling the group from its de-facto capital [in the Syrian city of Raqqa] was only one part of the much larger battle to contain the organization, as IS’s losses in Syria have failed to eradicate its appeal to potential recruits. As a matter of fact, according to some estimates, 3,000 fighters and more than 10,000 loyalists are still active on Syrian soil.

As history shows, this manpower is more than sufficient to wage a new insurgency in the currently liberated areas and exploit divisions among the local population, which have been exacerbated by conflict. Any remaining pockets can wait for a more opportune time to reemerge once American troops are extracted, mirroring the aftermath of the Obama administration’s withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. . . . [There], remnants of al-Qaeda were able to survive their defeat [in 2007] and reorganize, regroup, and reemerge as IS because . . . U.S. disengagement from the region exacerbated sectarian tensions, which continued to destabilize [Iraq] for years. [The result was] a weak state that struggled to respond to the new threat of IS.

As IS seeks to rebuild itself and prepare for its next move, the lesson of al-Qaeda should not be lost. While developing in Iraq, IS benefited from existing circumstances: first, the beginning of the Syrian conflict; second, socioeconomic grievances that excluded local populations from access to [social] services; and third, sectarian tensions that prevented members of certain religious groups from obtaining key jobs and climbing the social ladder. Both Syria and to a lesser extent Iraq still struggle with these issues, thereby continuing to offer ripe conditions for new local insurgencies. Without U.S. support, local allies would likely be overrun if IS reemerges, forcing President Trump to redeploy U.S. troops.

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.