Today’s anti-Semitism, writes Shmuel Trigano, even if it is not so different from the anti-Semitism of previous eras, finds its main expression in objection to the Jewish state’s existence. But while the Muslim variant is explicable in that it is rooted in religious rejection of Jewish sovereignty in the midst of the Middle East, the Western variety is harder to understand:

Western anti-Zionism . . . predicates itself on “compassion” and memory of the Holocaust. Not only does Western anti-Zionism accuse the Jews and the state of Israel of cynically exploiting the memory of the Holocaust; not only does it equate the Holocaust with the Palestinian “Nakba” (caused by the failed war of annihilation against the Jews in Israel) by establishing the Jews as modern-day Nazis, but the West has become a world where monuments and museums are erected to preserve the memory of the Holocaust, while the state of Israel is simultaneously outcast and stigmatized under the auspices of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement and legal warfare. Memory of the Holocaust is permitted; the right to the Western Wall is not.

The French [statesman] General Charles de Gaulle expressed this view perfectly in his outrageous comments following the Six-Day War, when he asserted that Israel had crossed its moral and political boundaries. The existence of the Jewish state, according to de Gaulle, was a form of compensation for the Holocaust and reparation for Europe’s crime against the Jewish people. With that, the Jews—in his mind—do not have the right to [violate European-imposed] boundaries or deem themselves sovereign or independent, and if they dare think otherwise, they will lose the support of France, which will no longer come to help them if they are in danger of being destroyed. . . .

At the core of [this sort of anti-Semitism], which [is just the old anti-Semitism] cloaked in different attire, is the humiliated Jew, stripped of legitimacy, denied any justification for living according to the accepted norms of the times, [and] attacked in a tangible way.

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.