On May 13, coordinated suicide bombings struck three churches in the Indonesian city of Surabaya; a fourth bombing occurred at the local police station the next day. Islamic State (IS) claimed responsibility for the attacks. To Ilan Berman and James Clad, the incident is indicative of a growing threat to the overwhelmingly Muslim country:

Indonesian Islam has long contained important cultural and ideological barriers to intolerance. . . . Despite variations within the 3,000-mile archipelago, Indonesia’s bedrock culture, especially in Java, reflects and reinforces coexistence among faiths, as well as tolerance for differing worldviews. Since the late 1990s, Indonesia’s democratic institutions have flourished in a diverse milieu in which self-described “Islamic” parties are free to contend. . . .

But is this delicate balance eroding? . . . The past couple of years have indeed offered worrying signs that Islamist groups and ideologies have gained influence. This includes, notably, the rise of Hizb-ut Tahrir Indonesia, a radical group complicit in the political ferment that surrounded last year’s hotly contested gubernatorial elections in Jakarta. The group is now formally banned by President Joko Widodo’s national government. . . .

[A]s of last fall some 700 Indonesians were estimated to have joined the ranks of Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. Those radicalized elements are now returning home, with devastating effect—all of the perpetrators of the Surabaya attacks were “alumni” of IS’s Middle Eastern caliphate. . . .

These trends make Indonesia an inviting target for Islamic State. With its decline in the Middle East, the terrorist group has made Southeast Asia a target of opportunity. Last fall, Islamic militants affiliated with IS waged a pitched but ultimately unsuccessful battle for the southern Philippine city of Marawi. As May’s bloody events in Surabaya make plain, similar radicals have now set their sights on Indonesia as well. Their goals are clear: to undermine the country’s religious moderation and exploit its shifting domestic scene in order to promote their own extreme worldview. And, like elsewhere, their successes will be measured by pluralism’s failure.

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.