Left-wing anti-Semitism has its roots in the 19th century, writes Alan Johnson. In the 20th it was transformed, under Soviet auspices, into anti-Zionism. And now the anti-Zionist left is eager to find common cause with Islamist anti-Semites:

[L]eft-wing anti-Zionism has been converging with some forms of Arab nationalism and even political Islamism—which are both now coded as singularly progressive. The left has its own version of Orientalism, which infantilizes the Palestinians and Arabs, puts them beyond criticism, and makes them the subject of endless Western left-wing delusions. For example, take Jeremy Corbyn’s truly incredible claim that Hamas and Hizballah are “bringing about long-term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region.”

This convergence . . . was smoothed by two developments on the left. In the East, the Communist bloc’s decades-long “anti-Zionist” propaganda campaign injected an “anti-imperialism of idiots” into the global left during the cold war. We are talking about the mass publication and global distribution of anti-Semitic materials through the Communist parties and their fellow travelers. . . . Two-hundred-and-thirty books were published in the USSR alone from 1969 to 1985 about a supposed Zionist-Masonic conspiracy against Russia. These books had a combined print run of 9.4 million.

In the West, . . . anti-imperialism . . . was raised to a radically new status in the 1960s. . . . [The Israeli-Palestinian conflict] was reframed. No longer was one people involved in a complex unresolved national question with another people. Now Israel became “a key site of the imperialist system” and the Palestinians became “the Resistance” to imperialism. . . .

Now, to support Israel’s enemies—whatever these enemies stood for, however they behaved—was a left-wing “anti-imperialist” duty: in other words, anti-Semitism went “progressive.”

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.