If Israel continues to “expand” its settlements in the West Bank, say supposed experts and policymakers, eventually Israelis and Palestinians will become so entangled in the small area that a two-state solution will be impossible; on this reasoning, Jerusalem is either acting against its own interests or not serious about allowing for Palestinian statehood. The next president ought at least to realize that this logic does not reflect the facts, write Elliott Abrams and Uri Sadot:

A careful look into the numbers shows that neither the population balance between Jews and Palestinians, nor the options for partition in the West Bank, have materially changed [in the past eight years]. . . .

While it is difficult to get an exact picture of population growth in the West Bank settlements, the ranges are clear. Israeli population in the settlements is growing, but at a rate that reflects mostly births in families already there, and not in-migration of new settlers. Meanwhile, the Palestinian population is also growing. . . . [Thus], in comparative terms, the demographic balance between Israelis and Palestinians in the West Bank has changed very little since Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu’s entry to office.

Considering all these data, the working assumptions guiding President Obama’s policy—as well as the administration’s alarmist predictions—were simply and flatly wrong. Settlement expansion is not speedily gobbling up the West Bank, nor has it killed off chances for peace. Nor is the status quo about to fray. . . .

[Contrary to the Obama administration’s claims], in the past eight years Israeli settlements have grown at a slow but steady rate, not the huge and dangerous expansion the president has been warning us about. . . .

The Trump administration should discourage Israel from investing in and populating isolated settlements, as there is simply no strategic logic for doing so. But far more important would be to focus on the final-status issues that actually matter most—like the so-called “right of return” for Palestinian refugees, the future of Jerusalem, and security in areas that Hamas or even Islamic State may try to seize in the future. Those issues remain the fundamental barriers to negotiating a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

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.