Since the 1960s, the proportion of Americans who marry has declined precipitously, while those who marry tend to do so later, and divorce rates have risen. Jews are by no means immune to these trends, but have been less affected that the overall population, marrying more than Catholics, Protestants, or Muslims, although less than Mormons and Hindus. More surprisingly, these trends hold true even when the Orthodox are removed from the picture. Charles Fain Lehman seeks an explanation.

The data point in several directions. Almost certainly, [the Jewish marriage rate] is linked to Jews’ socioeconomic advantages. . . . The more educated and wealthier you are, the more likely you are to be married. But at the same time, it appears that Jewish religious identity and communal bonds play a role as well.

Orthodox respondents [to a 2013 Pew survey] were, unsurprisingly, far more likely to be married—about 70 percent, in total. But respondents who identified as “Reform” or “Conservative” were also substantially more likely to be married than non-religious Jews—approximately 55 percent married for both, compared with 41 percent married for Jews of no religion.

Even after excluding Orthodox respondents, giving to a Jewish cause, being involved in a Jewish organization, having most or all of your friends be Jewish, and attending services at least monthly are all associated with a substantially higher probability of being married. In other words, there is a correlation between being involved with Jewish community and being married. . . . While the available data are not dispositive, there is at least a plausible argument that being involved in a religious and ethnic community promotes marriage.

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.