The Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders has declared that he won’t attend the annual conference of the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which begins this Sunday, because of the “platform [it] provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights.” While Sanders has no qualms about libeling AIPAC—until recently a regular stop for political candidates of both parties—he has never attended one of its gatherings. Last year, however, he was the speaker for the annual conference of the Islamic Society of North America, where, writes Asra Normani, no small amount of bigotry was given a platform:

[The conference’s] theme was, “What’s your super-power for social good?” Some [of the] “super-powers” suggested at the conference: . . . the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks a “one-state solution” with a “right of return” for Palestinians so that they outnumber Jews; the elimination of Israel from “the river to the sea,” as [endorsed by Sanders’s] ally Marc Lamont Hill; and violent hate, including a book, Reliance of the Traveler, which I bought in the conference bazaar for $39.99, sanctioning jihad as “war against non-Muslims” and “war upon Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians.”

[At the same conference], Sanders’s champion, Representative Rashida Tlaib, who supports BDS, [also] spoke. [And] the activist Linda Sarsour slipped into the Grand Ballroom to cheer “Uncle Bernie.” She has [also] backed the Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who condemned “Satanic Jews” and claimed to be an “anti-termite,” rather than an “anti-Semite.” The year before, at the same conference, I heard Sarsour say it’s a “problem” to “humanize” Israelis.

This past week, [meanwhile], Sanders said it is “an honor” to be endorsed by Emgage PAC, whose chief executive Wa’el Alzayat has defended Congresswoman Ilhan Omar’s anti-Semitism.

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.