Following the car-ramming attack by a neo-Nazi at the recent, violent protest in Charlottesville, many American conservatives made clear their disgust with the variety of racist groups gathered there. Many on both right and left also criticized the president for not being quicker and less equivocal in his condemnations. Yet, notes Ruthie Blum, many leftwing commentators “went even further, blaming not only Trump but the United States itself for the climate that led to the events in Virginia, with [one writer] arguing that ‘What Happened in Charlottesville Is All Too American.’” Blum wonders why the same premise of guilt by association doesn’t apply to the Palestinian Authority (PA):

PA schools and summer camps educate children to believe that murdering on behalf of the “liberation of Palestine”—and in the name of Allah—is not only honorable but worthy of glorification. PA imams preach jihad. PA sports arenas and tournaments are named after “martyred” terrorists, all of whose families receive a salary of more than $3,000 per month for life. . . .

Although Hamas, the terrorist organization that rules the Gaza Strip, is shunned by U.S. negotiators, Fatah, the party headed by the PA president Mahmoud Abbas, is considered a potential partner for peace with Israel.

Official Fatah social-media pages, however, openly laud and encourage “lone wolves” to arm themselves with knives and vehicles with which to slaughter Israelis whenever and wherever possible. . . . A Palestinian who uses his car as a deadly weapon is viewed by his peers and rulers as a hero. Physical violence is officially sanctioned and rewarded.

An American who commits violence is demonized by everyone other than a handful of hardcore bigots. Still, many in the U.S. consider America to be a racist country and the Palestinians worthy of stalwart support.

Surveying news websites and social media on Sunday morning, I immediately found some intelligent and well-informed observers arguing that Iran deliberately warned the U.S. of its pending assault on Israel, and calibrated it so that there would be few casualties and minimal destructiveness, thus hoping to avoid major retaliation. In other words, this massive barrage was a face-saving gesture by the ayatollahs. Others disagreed. Brian Carter and Frederick W. Kagan put the issue to rest:

The Iranian April 13 missile-drone attack on Israel was very likely intended to cause significant damage below the threshold that would trigger a massive Israeli response. The attack was designed to succeed, not to fail. The strike package was modeled on those the Russians have used repeatedly against Ukraine to great effect. The attack caused more limited damage than intended likely because the Iranians underestimated the tremendous advantages Israel has in defending against such strikes compared with Ukraine.

But that isn’t to say that Tehran achieved nothing:

The lessons that Iran will draw from this attack will allow it to build more successful strike packages in the future. The attack probably helped Iran identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Israeli air-defense system. Iran will likely also share the lessons it learned in this attack with Russia.

Iran’s ability to penetrate Israeli air defenses with even a small number of large ballistic missiles presents serious security concerns for Israel. The only Iranian missiles that got through hit an Israeli military base, limiting the damage, but a future strike in which several ballistic missiles penetrate Israeli air defenses and hit Tel Aviv or Haifa could cause significant civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, including ports and energy. . . . Israel and its partners should not emerge from this successful defense with any sense of complacency.