Last month, a group of six progressive American Jewish organizations sent a formal letter to the secretary of homeland security urging him to reverse the decision made in December requiring products that originate in the Israeli-controlled part of the West Bank to be labeled “made in Israel.” The letter claims the ruling to be an attempt “to reverse decades of U.S. policy.” But this is not so, argues David Milstein:

The Trump administration’s notice issued on December 23, 2020 requires goods produced where Israel continues to exercise relevant authorities and administrative control under the Oslo Accords and Hebron Protocol, in Area C and H2 of the West Bank, be labeled as “product of Israel,” or with similar markings. Goods produced where the Palestinian Authority (PA) continues to have civilian oversight in Areas A and B, along with H1 of the West Bank, must be labeled [with the words] “West Bank” or similar markings.

After attempting to rewrite the actual history of U.S. policy [on the issue], the letter also falsely claims that the Trump administration’s notice was actually part of an effort “to endorse and legitimize Israeli settlements.” It is important to [note] the fact that U.S. policy prior to the Oslo Accords mandated the word “Israel” on the label of all goods emanating from the West Bank. No one ever suggested or claimed throughout decades of Republican and Democratic administrations that this policy meant the U.S. was supporting settlements or Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank. Neither did the Trump administration. To the contrary, country-of-origin markings factually reflect who has control over a geographic area at a given time. They are not used as a tool to denote sovereignty.

In short, the Trump administration’s ruling reflects both reality and international law as establishing by recognized treaties and agreements, while the authors of the letter want to revert to a policy that does neither and, moreover, treats Israel unlike any other country.

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.