A recent gathering in London of neo-Nazis and other anti-Semites received some attention in the British press. Despite the event’s ugly rhetoric, including calls for a boycott of Jewish-owned businesses, Douglas Murray points to a different group as the primary cause for concern:

[The neo-Nazis are] not the only people calling for boycotts. An anti-Israel boycott is part of Green-party policy. . . .

Natalie Bennett, the Green party’s Australian-born leader, has . . . told the Jewish Chronicle that she not only supports an economic boycott of Israel but a cultural boycott, too. This presumably means that Bennett believes British citizens should not listen, for instance, to a performance by a Jewish pianist who has been born in the historic homeland of the Jewish people. Or visit an exhibition by a painter from Israel or receive medical assistance from a Jewish surgeon who has migrated (isn’t the Green party in favor of open borders?) to the historic homeland of the Jewish people 70 years after the creation of the state of Israel.

I suppose that for the time being Bennett would still allow us to hear a Jewish pianist so long as the said pianist had not asserted their right to go to live in the world’s one and only Jewish state. But it is striking that the only type of migrant Bennett thinks we should boycott and disdain are Jewish migrants. . . .

A lot of people will be thinking of voting Green next month. Many of them will be fed up with the other parties or have no idea what the Green party stands for. As I say—a few discredited old Nazis are no problem whatsoever beside these 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.