Together with two of their colleagues, Simon Bronner and Michael A. Rockland have filed suit against the American Studies Association (ASA), for violating the terms of its charter by boycotting Israel. They explain their rationale:

[T]he academic boycott of Israel has nothing to do with the ASA’s purpose of “broadening knowledge about American culture.” Indeed, the boycott is at odds with the ASA’s mission by reducing the ability of U.S. and Israeli scholars and students to work collaboratively on the study and teaching of American culture. The boycott even prevents ASA members from working with the many Arabs who study at Israeli universities. Thus, under well-known principles of corporate law, the boycott is illegal. . . .

Just as it would be wrong to take control of a church, temple, or mosque and use its resources to promote another faith, it is wrong to take a scholarly organization such as the ASA and turn into a political organization aimed at “social change.” . . .

In addition to betraying us and our efforts, the anti-Israel warriors running the ASA have created a distraction at substantial cost to the ASA in terms of membership and lost revenue. They have also exposed our group to ridicule. . . .

We strongly support free speech. Indeed, one reason why we are against the boycott is that it chills speech and the free academic exchange of ideas. We believe that the proponents of the Israel boycott should be allowed to voice their opinions, and that the truth will win out. But they are not entitled to use the ASA—funded by the annual fees of over 5,000 American-studies scholars—as a megaphone for demonizing Israel.

Early Friday morning, Israel attacked military installations near the Iranian cities of Isfahan and nearby Natanz, the latter being one of the hubs of the country’s nuclear program. Jerusalem is not taking credit for the attack, and none of the details are too certain, but it seems that the attack involved multiple drones, likely launched from within Iran, as well as one or more missiles fired from Syrian or Iraqi airspace. Strikes on Syrian radar systems shortly beforehand probably helped make the attack possible, and there were reportedly strikes on Iraq as well.

Iran itself is downplaying the attack, but the S-300 air-defense batteries in Isfahan appear to have been destroyed or damaged. This is a sophisticated Russian-made system positioned to protect the Natanz nuclear installation. In other words, Israel has demonstrated that Iran’s best technology can’t protect the country’s skies from the IDF. As Yossi Kuperwasser puts it, the attack, combined with the response to the assault on April 13,

clarified to the Iranians that whereas we [Israelis] are not as vulnerable as they thought, they are more vulnerable than they thought. They have difficulty hitting us, but we have no difficulty hitting them.

Nobody knows exactly how the operation was carried out. . . . It is good that a question mark hovers over . . . what exactly Israel did. Let’s keep them wondering. It is good for deniability and good for keeping the enemy uncertain.

The fact that we chose targets that were in the vicinity of a major nuclear facility but were linked to the Iranian missile and air forces was a good message. It communicated that we can reach other targets as well but, as we don’t want escalation, we chose targets nearby that were involved in the attack against Israel. I think it sends the message that if we want to, we can send a stronger message. Israel is not seeking escalation at the moment.