According to one ancient rabbinic commentary, the book of Ruth—read in many synagogues on the holiday of Shavuot, which begins Saturday night—was written only because it tells of deeds of lovingkindness being rewarded. A Moabite by birth, the book’s titular heroine is a descendant of Abraham’s nephew Lot, who, in the book of Genesis, parts ways with his illustrious uncle to dwell in the sinful city of Sodom. Miriam Kosman, contrasting the selfishness for which rabbinic tradition condemns the Sodomites with the selflessness exhibited by Ruth, suggests a novel reading of the book:

“What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours” sounds like a perfectly reasonable life philosophy. This vacuum cleaner is mine. I’m happy to lend it to you, but please return it in good shape, and when I borrow your drill, I’ll do the same. The talmudic tractate of Pirkei Avot seems to agree that this is normal—“average behavior.” Yet it goes on to tell us that “some say that this [perfectly reasonable approach] is the characteristic of Sodom.” . . .

In Sodom’s worldview, lovingkindness is the cruelest thing you can do to a person, because giving to someone makes him needy and dependent. . . . Perhaps Lot was suffering from the . . . “thanks-but-no-thanks” syndrome. . . . Whether one gets one’s wealth because of another person, the way Lot did from Abraham, or . . . directly from God, there’s a reflexive reaction to wrench away from whoever is giving to you, to assert one’s independence, to say, “thanks for thinking of me, but it’s okay, I’ve got it. No, thanks. I can manage on my own.” . . .

Circumstances had thrust Ruth, a former princess [according to the midrash], into an incredibly humiliating situation. She was a convert in a strange land whose people looked askance at Moabites in general and at her in particular. Her only relative was [her mother-in-law Naomi], a destitute, fallen-from-grace widow, and their sustenance had to come from scavenging in a stranger’s field. And yet Ruth does not seem to recognize this, nor does she seem to grasp how pathetic her situation is.

Eventually it is the kindness of Boaz, who is first Ruth’s benefactor and then her suitor, that saves her and Naomi from their plight. Yet in the end it is Boaz who thanks Ruth for her kindness toward himself, while praising her for her selfless devotion to her mother-in-law, which is the book’s central example of lovingkindness. Kosman argues that a fundamental link connects Ruth’s ability to accept the kindness of others nobly and gracefully with her ability to deal kindly with others. Together, these two attributes constitute a rejection of the Sodomite attitude of asking nothing and giving nothing.

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.