Despite the fact that Black Lives Matter formally endorsed the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement, and accused Israel of genocide, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has refused to cut its ties with the organization. Similarly, when a congressman referred to Jews living in the West Bank as “termites,” the ADL mustered only a weak response. Isi Leibler takes these and other instances as evidence that Jonathan Greenblatt—a former White House staffer who assumed leadership of the ADL last year—has lost sight of its mission:

Greenblatt . . . has behaved as though he ‎remained employed by the Obama administration. He was entirely out of line in his ‎condemnation of the Republican platform as “anti-Zionist” for omitting reference to a two-‎state solution. One can disagree about a two-state policy. But for an American Jewish ‎organization, which must remain bipartisan and should be concentrating on anti-Semitism, to ‎issue such a statement breaches all conventions. It is totally beyond the ADL’s mandate to ‎involve itself in such partisan political issues.‎

Greenblatt is clearly obsessed with the subject of being “open-minded” and tolerant of anti-‎Israeli groups. He made the extraordinary statement that, while disagreeing with the boycott, ‎divestment, and sanctions groups that promote anti-Semitism, he considers that they ‎are “animated by a desire for justice” and we should “acknowledge the earnestness of their ‎motives.” One is tempted to remind him that Islamic fundamentalists are also sincere in their ‎beliefs and equally animated by their perverted concept of justice.‎ . . .

The ADL’s central mandate must be to combat anti-Semitism, which is today largely manifested ‎in the demonization and delegitimization of Israel. If it elects to abandon this objective, it ‎does not warrant Jewish communal support.‎

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.