In the Middle East and across the globe, there are numerous stateless nations, refugee problems, and longstanding struggles over territory, yet the Israel-Palestinian conflict is treated as if it is fundamentally unlike all others, and has been treated thus from its inception. Hussein Aboubakr examines this strange situation:

Very few, if any, causes and ideas can gain the support . . . of so many disparate ideologies the way the Palestinian cause does. From the ideological projects of Islamism, jihadism, and Arab nationalism to Third World liberation ideologies, feminism, and wokeism, the Palestinian cause serves as a rallying call to disharmonious groups. Palestinian “refugees” are considered a unique breed of displaced humans, utterly different from the tens of millions who were displaced since World War II. The recent wave of protests against the oppressive rule of the Palestinian Authority proved to be [of little] interest to the Western supporters of the [Palestinian] cause, many of whom hold up the slain Saudi journalist Khashoggi as a Christlike figure.

The magical exceptionalism of the Palestinians turns appalling acts of violence . . . from terrorism into resistance. It turns common real-estate disputes into a struggle of justice, Islam, Arabness, feminism, wokeism, socialism, etc. It turns the cowardice of Islamist terrorists into heroic self-sacrifice. . . . And finally, it turns the nauseating toxic anti-Semitism, which is now proliferating the world over, into a banner of self-righteousness and equity.

The reason the star of the Palestinian cause is dimming among Arab nations, while ironically getting brighter in the West, is [that] we don’t see the Palestinians as exceptional anymore. . . . Ultimately, the biggest losers of Palestinian exceptionalism are none but Palestinians who seek a better future for their people.

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.