In recent weeks, John Ashton, a physician and public-health expert, has been a regular presence on the United Kingdom’s state-funded television station. Ashton, a member of the Labor party who has previously gotten himself into trouble for using foul language on Twitter, turns out to have a record of anti-Semitic pronouncements. Stephen Pollard writes:

Among other things, [Ashton] has compared “Zionists” to Nazis and written that “Jews” should reflect on the actions of the Israeli military. [A]fter calling Louise Ellman, [a Jewish Labor parliamentarian who resigned in response to the anti-Semitism in her party], a “vile Zionist,” he wrote: “Is it time for a human being to stand against Louise Ellman in next year’s general election?” In a message sent to Luciana Berger, [another Jewish MP who resigned from Labor for the same reason], after she highlighted the rising problem with food banks . . . in 2012, he wrote: “What about the Palestinians?”

When a prominent Jewish group wrote a letter to the BBC’s head of news, Fran Unsworth, calling these statements to her attention, and asking that Ashton’s television appearances be discontinued, she responded with a letter of her own stating that, while she understands her correspondents’ “strength of feeling about the views [they] have ascribed to Professor Ashton on Israel and Zionism,” he has not expressed such views on air. Moreover, wrote Unsworth, it would be bad policy to “ban” Ashton because of his “political views.” Pollard responds:

Anti-Semitic remarks, according to the BBC’s head of news, are merely “political views.” Yeah, some people won’t like them but, hey, others will and it’s not our job to take sides in the day-to-day cut and thrust of political views, you know. Anti-Semitism—it’s just a political choice.

The charitable explanation is that Ms. Unsworth is an idiot. . . . But I doubt very much she is an idiot. The real worry is that she knows exactly what the words she used mean and she genuinely does think that, when one of the BBC’s regular talking heads is exposed for having spouted such sentiments, he is merely expressing a political view.

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.