In the Israeli system, seats in the Knesset are divided proportionally among those parties that received a minimum of 3.25 percent of the national vote. Votes for any party that does not meet the 3.25-percent threshold are thus “wasted” since they don’t translate into potential members of a governing coalition. Thus, in order to ensure that both parties would pass the threshold, the religious Zionist Jewish Home party, at Prime Minister Netanyahu’s urging, merged with the Kahanist party Otzma, creating much handwringing about a supposed rising tide of chauvinism in Israel. Evelyn Gordon argues that, whatever Otzma’s defects, the real problem isn’t a change in attitudes but a 2014 decision to raise the electoral threshold from 2 percent:

With a lower threshold, Netanyahu would have no interest in promoting a merger between Jewish Home and Otzma: by definition, any party that couldn’t get elected on its own would win so few votes that [a potential governing coalition] could probably spare it. Today, however, Jewish Home could easily fail to pass the threshold while still wasting enough votes to cost the right its majority. So for anyone who considers a continuation of right-wing policy essential, as Netanyahu and Jewish Home both do, shoring up the latter through a joint ticket suddenly looks essential as well. . . .

In the seventeen years preceding Netanyahu’s 2009 victory, Israelis thrice elected former generals who campaigned against diplomatic concessions [to the Palestinians], which they promptly turned around and implemented once in office. . . . But Netanyahu has proved for ten years now that he [won’t do such a thing]. Thus anyone fearful of further territorial concessions has good reason to stick with him rather than gambling on [his leading rival, the former general Benny] Gantz. And given what previous withdrawals have cost, such fear is unquestionably justified. Yitzḥak Rabin’s Oslo Accords and Ehud Barak’s failed summit [with Yasir Arafat] both sparked upsurges of terror that together killed some 1,500 Israelis. Ariel Sharon’s disengagement [from Gaza] led to 20,000 rockets being launched on Israel’s south. . . .

[Furthermore], a lower threshold would facilitate the entry of new parties that Israel actually needs, like a moderate Arab party and a moderate ḥaredi one. Demand exists for such parties in both communities. But a higher threshold discourages voters from taking a flyer on a new party, since it means the party will have less chance of getting in and will waste more votes if it fails. Yet, as the last two elections have counterintuitively proven, a lower threshold also reduces the likelihood of extremists entering the Knesset by eliminating a powerful incentive to merge with them.

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.