For the past several weeks, the Tikvah Fund—the Jewish non-profit educational institution that publishes Mosaic—had been planning to hold its annual conference at the Museum of Jewish Heritage in Manhattan. When the conference’s organizers informed the venue that the keynote speaker would be Governor Ron DeSantis of Florida, the museum then decided that the conference could no longer be he held on its premises because DeSantis does not “align with the museum’s values and its message of inclusivity.” Jonathan Tobin examines the implications of a mainstream Jewish organization’s decision to ban a major American political figure:

[F]or this sort of behavior to find a foothold in a leading Jewish institution—much less one dedicated as a “living memorial to the Holocaust”—is a sign of the abandonment of its Jewish responsibilities in favor of a partisan cause.

You can agree or disagree with everything the governor does or stands for. But the notion that a Holocaust museum should be off-limits for any leading voice in mainstream American politics, let alone a figure who has been as closely aligned with the Jewish community on many important issues as DeSantis, isn’t so much ill-advised as it is absurd.

Subsequently, the museum claimed that it opposed DeSantis because it didn’t host political events. But . . . the same museum welcomed Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez —the leading voice of the leftist “Squad” that is deeply hostile to Israel—in 2018. Equally controversial politicians like the former New York governor Andrew Cuomo . . . have also appeared there.

The museum’s hypocrisy in canceling DeSantis while welcoming controversial liberal or left-wing Democrats demonstrates its shameless embrace of partisanship. But it also shows that for those involved in this institution, remembering the Holocaust isn’t a sacred Jewish duty but just another way . . . to back up the political agendas of its staff and funders.

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.