Since 2000, France has earned the dubious distinction of leading the West as a center of anti-Semitism, from low-grade harassment to acts of murder. French leaders, writes Tsilla Hershco, have started to take this problem seriously, even going so far as to recognize that hatred of Jews very often comes in the form of hatred of Israel. Yet their attitude continues to ignore some important facts:

France’s embarrassment and concern over growing anti-Semitic violence is sincere, as is its desire to fight it. However, this desire clashes with French apprehension about singling out the large Muslim population, [where the vast majority of attacks originate], which might prompt accusations of “Islamophobia.” These contradictory concerns were . . . reflected in Prime Minister Edouard Philippe’s November 2018 announcement in which he included the struggle against anti-Semitism in the broader framework of the fight against racism and xenophobia, thus reducing its effectiveness.

Despite [its] acknowledgement of the correlation between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, France either joins, or does not oppose, . . . discriminatory [United Nations] resolutions promoted by anti-Semitic states and organizations.

The same paradoxical attitudes are evident in French statements regarding terrorist attacks carried out by Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad that target the civilian Israeli population with missiles. . . . France condemned the shooting of missiles toward Israel but watered down its condemnation by expressing concern for the loss of human life on both sides, urging “mutual restraint” and calling on Israel to stop the blockade of Gaza. By putting the terrorist organizations and Israel on a par, France exposed its double standard regarding its own fight against terror and Israel’s justified acts of self-defense against terrorist organizations and entities.

At the end of the day, France’s fight against anti-Semitism is undermined by contradictions and discrepancies between its own determined efforts to curb anti-Semitism within France and its traditionally appeasing approach to the same issue in the Middle East. Joining, or failing to oppose, . . . resolutions promoted by anti-Semitic states and organizations that openly aspire to eliminate the Jewish state is detrimental to France’s fight against anti-Semitism at home, as it encourages anti-Semitic perpetrators to continue their crimes.

Surveying news websites and social media on Sunday morning, I immediately found some intelligent and well-informed observers arguing that Iran deliberately warned the U.S. of its pending assault on Israel, and calibrated it so that there would be few casualties and minimal destructiveness, thus hoping to avoid major retaliation. In other words, this massive barrage was a face-saving gesture by the ayatollahs. Others disagreed. Brian Carter and Frederick W. Kagan put the issue to rest:

The Iranian April 13 missile-drone attack on Israel was very likely intended to cause significant damage below the threshold that would trigger a massive Israeli response. The attack was designed to succeed, not to fail. The strike package was modeled on those the Russians have used repeatedly against Ukraine to great effect. The attack caused more limited damage than intended likely because the Iranians underestimated the tremendous advantages Israel has in defending against such strikes compared with Ukraine.

But that isn’t to say that Tehran achieved nothing:

The lessons that Iran will draw from this attack will allow it to build more successful strike packages in the future. The attack probably helped Iran identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Israeli air-defense system. Iran will likely also share the lessons it learned in this attack with Russia.

Iran’s ability to penetrate Israeli air defenses with even a small number of large ballistic missiles presents serious security concerns for Israel. The only Iranian missiles that got through hit an Israeli military base, limiting the damage, but a future strike in which several ballistic missiles penetrate Israeli air defenses and hit Tel Aviv or Haifa could cause significant civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, including ports and energy. . . . Israel and its partners should not emerge from this successful defense with any sense of complacency.