No, writes Shmuel Even. Ten years after Israel evacuated troops and civilians from Gaza, the area remains a source of terror attacks, and Israel continues to be condemned for defending itself (article begins on p. 75):

The withdrawal from the Gaza Strip created a new reality that contributed to the Hamas takeover, a steep rise in weapons smuggling, the strengthening of terrorism, and the ensuing cycle of escalation. [T]he terrorism in the West Bank (and from there to Israel) can serve as a partial standard for comparison, [since no disengagement took place there]. The West Bank saw a steep drop in the number of terrorist attacks and Israeli casualties, following the security measures taken [there] and the end of the intifada. . . . [By contrast], the force of terrorism from Gaza and [Israeli involvement in] military operations intensified.

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.