In an interview on Monday, Jared Kushner dropped some hints about the plan for resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict that the U.S. government intends to reveal in April. Khaled Abu Toameh notes that, since the Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas has already made clear that he will reject the proposal—which he has termed “the slap of the century”—what Israelis think of it is hardly consequential:

Palestinian leaders have incited their people against President Trump and his advisers to the point where it would be almost impossible for them even to be seen meeting with a U.S. official. In recent months, Abbas has been quoted as saying that he does not intend to end his life as a “traitor.” The comment . . . means that it would also be impossible to accept any peace plan presented by the current administration.

Anyone who thinks that the Palestinians may change their mind about [what Donald Trump has called] the “deal of the century” . . . is living in an illusion. There is no reason why Abbas should not be taken seriously when he says he does not intend to end his life as a “traitor.” One has to give him credit for at least being honest. He is all too aware that the moment he accepts the “deal of the century,” he would go down in history and in the eyes of Palestinians—as well as many Arabs—as having sold them out, and, of all people, to the “colonizers.”. . .

Arab foreign ministers who attended the recent U.S.-sponsored conference in Poland on peace and security in the Middle East are now facing strong condemnations from many Arabs . . . for appearing in public with Benjamin Netanyahu [at the conference]. . . . They are being accused by Arabs of promoting normalization with the “Zionist enemy.” . . .

Under [such] circumstances, when Arabs are being widely shamed and condemned for sitting in the same room with an Israeli prime minister, it is hard to see how the Trump administration will be able to convince Arab states and leaders to normalize their relations with Israel. Some of these Arab leaders may be privately telling White House officials things they like to hear about peace and coexistence with Israel. The very same leaders, however, are fully aware of the opposite sentiments, not only in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, but throughout the Arab world.

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.