In his book Justice for the Poor, recently published in Hebrew, Benjamin Porat analyzes and compares the underlying ideas that animate the biblical and talmudic prescriptions for caring for the indigent. He provides a summary of his main points in English:

To a great extent the Bible bequeathed the obligation of poverty relief to the world, as neither ancient Near Eastern cultures nor the early Greco-Roman world recognized the existence of a legal obligation to ensure the welfare of the poor and the needy. Later, in the period of the Mishnah [ca. 200 CE] and subsequently in talmudic times [ca. 200–600 CE], the laws of charity became [a bedrock] legal obligation upon the Jewish community to support the poor who lived in the vicinity. The institution of charity became an identifying mark of Jewish life.

[Despite some salient differences], it should be recalled that there are . . . many similarities between the conception of welfare in the Bible and that which developed in the study houses of the sages. For example, following biblical law, the rabbis advocated the idea that responsibility for the wellbeing of the poor is imposed on property owners as a legal matter and is not dependent on their compassion. According to the rabbis, this legal responsibility is imposed not only on communal institutions, but also as a personal duty of each single individual, similar to the personal duty imposed by the Pentateuch on the landowner toward his needy neighbor.

Moreover, following a philosophical study of both welfare systems—that of biblical law and that of the rabbis—it seems clear that their fundamental concern, their basic value, is not equality but rather brotherhood; their main struggle is not to reduce social inequalities but rather to provide the needy with the necessary means for their wellbeing.

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.