The phrase “non-observant Orthodox” was commonplace in American Jewish circles in the mid-20th century, when it described a significant share of the Jewish population. If it has fallen into disuse, that is because, Zev Eleff writes, the type has largely vanished from the American scene:

Decades ago, . . . it was well-known that Orthodox life and Jewish law could be decoupled, no philosophical apologetics needed. This sort of sociological separation yielded a variegated Orthodox profile. . . . The non-observant Orthodox Jew emerged as an indispensable member of the Orthodox community, supporting its institutions and preempting those who would have preferred more rigid definitions for Orthodox Jews. True, the non-observant Orthodox Jew was by and large removed from Orthodox Judaism’s inner circle, but was also far from being an “outsider” in this community. . . .

Halakhah was not an all-or-nothing arrangement for this group of self-described Orthodox Jews. On the one hand, [they] made no claim that they abided by all the strictures of halakhah (although they did feel that the rabbi ought to sport an unimpeachable record). On the other hand, these laymen contended that this did not disqualify them from the ranks of the Orthodox. Certainly, they did not agree with the theological points of view of the Reform and Conservative rabbis who preached from pulpits and filled editorial columns in the Jewish press. [Yet] they did not frequent the synagogue all that often, behavior that was more closely in line with the non-Orthodox rank-and-file. But when they did make it, say, to recite kaddish or for a bar mitzvah, their choice was invariably the Orthodox variety. . . .

The more homogeneous character of the Orthodox community [that has emerged more recently] has . . . contributed to an increasing sense of rigidity. . . . Orthodox leaders have tended in the past few decades to pay more attention to what ought to count as “Orthodox” and to patrol community borders [more strictly]. The “non-observant Orthodox Jew” has been eliminated from the lexicon.

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.