In Not in God’s Name, Britain’s former chief rabbi rebuts the charge that religion is, in itself, an incurable source of brutal violence, seeks out the causes of religious violence, and suggests ways such violence—especially in the form of modern-day jihadism—can be checked. Michael Rosen writes in his review:

Sacks’s footing is firmest when he’s interpreting biblical texts and deriving ethical lessons from them; he paints the vivid characters populating Genesis with unrivaled poise, passion, and sensitivity. His language sparkles, too, when outlining the trajectory of Jewish history in its biblical and rabbinic eras, from its bellicose origins to its quietist present and equally so when exploring Christianity’s similar evolution.

Sacks is less persuasive, however, when explaining how that transformation can be replicated today, especially by Islam. For instance, in describing how the Jews sublimated their injunction to destroy the biblical nation of Amalek into a metaphor for pure evil, both internal and external, as a “struggle within the soul,” Sacks suggests how Islamists might reinterpret jihad. But are they listening? Should they be? . . . That the Jews have largely renounced violence hardly means Islamists will do the same.

If this book has a flaw, it’s this: it ought to appeal to all good-hearted religious people. However, the bad-hearted religious people don’t seem to be listening and the good-hearted secular folks don’t really need to. Sacks concludes by urging “an international campaign against the teaching and preaching of hate,” insisting on “reciprocal altruism” and recognizing that “we are all children of Abraham.” Will his call be enough to turn the tide of religious violence? Probably not. Must we heed it anyway? Absolutely.

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.