On his recent visit to the U.S., Ayman Odeh, the leader of the parliamentary coalition of Israeli-Arab parties known as the Joint List, was lauded and cheered by the media. In an effort to promote the sort of Jewish-Arab harmony Odeh allegedly represents, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations invited him to a meeting at its offices. Tellingly, Odeh found a pretext to decline. Jonathan Tobin comments:

Despite the attempt to sell Odeh and his Joint List as a reasonable Arab political alternative to Netanyahu, his bizarre decision to boycott the Conference tells us plenty about the alliance he leads and what his intentions for Israel truly are.

It should be first understood that the attitude of the parties that came together to form the Joint List is not one that is actually compatible with any reasonable notion of peace between Israel and the Palestinians. . . . Ḥadash, the Israeli Communist party that is led by Odeh, seeks not only the end of Israel as a Jewish state but its replacement by a Communist one. . . . Though [the Joint List’s] members don’t necessarily advocate violence to achieve their ends, for the most part they clearly sympathize with those who do. . . .

[Odeh’s] idea of a two-state solution is of an all-Arab Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza alongside an Israel in which the Jewish majority is stripped of its rights of self-determination. That’s a formula for more violence, not peace, let alone coexistence.

Moreover, if Odeh can’t sit down in the New York offices of a Jewish group dedicated to helping its fellow Jews in Israel, how is it possible to imagine his loose coalition of Communists, secular anti-Zionists, and Islamists helping to further peace in the Middle East?

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.