There seems to be widespread agreement in Israel’s left-wing media, and in mainstream media everywhere else, that Benjamin Netanyahu is an anti-Arab bigot. His policies, writes Robert Cherry, suggest something far different:

For a start, affirmative-action policies initiated under Ehud Olmert were accelerated during the Netanyahu administration. These prioritized economic development, including allocating funds for joint industrial parks in Arab and Jewish towns. Subsidies helped firms hire Arab labor and expanded transportation infrastructure, which allowed Arabs to reach employment sites. These ventures were so successful that the government began setting up industrial parks and employment offices exclusively in Arab towns. In addition, the Israeli government developed a five-year plan for improving Arab education and established a special unit in the prime minister’s office to promote economic development in the Arab community. . . .

At the same time, educational and occupational initiatives began to improve the possibilities for Arab women, whose labor-participation rates increased substantially. . . . As a result of [such] policies, between 2005 and 2011, the inflation-adjusted Arab net family income increased by 7.4 percent. . . .

Critics have tried to ignore or undermine these beneficial government policies. For instance, Palestinian nationalists have discouraged cooperation with Israel ministries. . . . When the government opened up national service to Arab Israelis [as an alternative to military service, from which they are exempt], nationalists, led by Balad-party activists, engaged in intimidation to discourage participation. Despite these efforts, enrollment grew dramatically and the sociologist Sammy Smooha reported that 90 percent of participants take pride and satisfaction in their service.

Another [example] of tunnel vision [can be found in] the liberal media, which give prominence to allegations or proven cases of anti-Arab sentiment among Israeli Jews. . . . But contra the liberal doomsayers, there is significant evidence of softening attitudes among Israeli Jews toward Israeli Arabs, despite the reverse not being the case.

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.