While former diplomats, foreign-policy experts, and political commentators mainly disparaged last week’s conference in Manama on how to improve the economic situation of the Palestinians, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld—a professor of management who participated in the gathering and chaired one of the panels—sees reasons for optimism. He writes:

I attended virtually every second of the formal and informal elements of this event. I did not hear even passing anti-Zionist comments, as much as I would have expected them in an atmosphere where Israel’s historic critics outnumbered its allies. . . .

At this conference, the prominent Palestinian business leader Ashraf Jabari, who heads a large clan in Hebron, explained how he has advanced bonds with Jewish settlers—even creating a business association for Palestinian and settlement businesses to work collaboratively. As he said on Wednesday, “I have no problem working with Israel. It is time to move on.” Smiling and nodding as he spoke were not only a dozen fellow Palestinian leaders but also the dozen Israeli business leaders present, including the shipping magnate Shlomi Fogel. . . .

Since then, I’ve learned what he put at risk by being there and speaking out. Sadly, another member of the Palestinian delegation was arrested by the Palestinian Authority (PA) at a family event upon returning home; other delegation members saw their homes raided. “The Palestinian Authority does not want peace. They told the families of the businessmen that they are wanted [by police] for participating in the Bahrain workshop,” Jabari told the Jerusalem Post, adding that the workshop was “a big success and that’s why [PA President Mahmoud] Abbas is very worried.”

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.