The British-born journalist Dina Gold, descended on her mother’s side from a family of German fur-coat manufacturers, took it upon herself to discover what became of their large office building in downtown Berlin. Upon driving the Jewish-owned Wolff Furs out of business, the Nazis had forced the sale of the building; after the war it was inherited by East Germany and then by the unified Federal Republic. Gold relates her family history and the story of her attempt at receiving restitution in what is, according to Josh Gelernter, a gripping book:

The real story begins with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. Dina Gold . . . decided to have a look at her family’s building, and as the newly unified Germany opened up to reparation claims, she persuaded her mother to try to establish ownership. As might be expected, the German authorities were not especially helpful. First, they tried to prove that the Wolffs had sold their building voluntarily to the Nazis. Then they sought to prove that the building didn’t exist anymore: a communicating door had been built in the wall it shared with an adjacent building; this, it was claimed, made the two structures one entirely new building. Then they tried to prove that because the building had been “altered” since it was confiscated, it was no long subject to the laws of restitution. They also contested the validity of the Wolffs’ wills.

Fortunately, Dina Gold was able to find a few good Germans to help her, but they had to fight an uphill battle. How did it turn out? I won’t spoil it for you.

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.