In the wake of the terror attacks in Paris, some Israeli politicians have called on French Jews to move to Israel. Critics argued that it was not the place of Israel’s leaders to make such an appeal and, furthermore, that it is in Israel’s interest to have the continued support of Diaspora communities. Taking a more nuanced view, Yaakov Amidror stipulates that, on the one hand, Israel’s “situation would be better in every way if twice as many Jews lived” there:

It would be easier to deal with internal issues such as preserving the state’s Jewish character. It would be simpler to develop the economy, since it is hard to base a national economy on just eight million citizens. A potential enlistment pool twice as large would make it easier to deal with security problems, to name just a few examples. . . .

In addition, Israel must not base its relationship with the U.S. or with other democratic countries on the “Jewish connection” alone. It is better for future relations . . . if it is clear that the relationship is based on mutual interests and on the support that stems from shared values, which Israel promotes in a challenging region.

On the other hand, Amidror writes that “Of course, as long as Jews live in those countries, mutual involvement must be nurtured seriously and the connection between those communities and Israel must be strengthened.”

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.