Yesterday an IDF soldier was indicted for shooting a wounded, prone terrorist in the aftermath of a stabbing attack. The case has sparked much controversy in Israel—along with the usual censure and handwringing abroad—as the soldier’s defenders claim that he responded to a credible threat, while others assert that he committed murder. Noting a similar, if more clearcut, case involving a British marine in Afghanistan in 2011, likewise caught on video, Ben-Dror Yemini draws some conclusions:

[The British soldier, Alexander Wayne] Blackman, was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum of ten years. . . . There was no argument over the facts. The video revealed the full picture, including the fact that Blackman was aware he was violating the Geneva Conventions. . . .

The conviction intensified the protests [against Blackman’s prosecution]. The British defense secretary, Michael Fallon, ordered soldiers not to attend demonstrations in solidarity with Blackman, because these were “political” demonstrations. Fallon’s order was ignored as thousands rallied, including 700 members of the marines, both on active duty and in the reserves. Many of the demonstrators were in uniform. . . . There was a heated argument in military circles [about whether Blackman deserved his punishment].

The British case is not presented here to justify the unusual incident. Israel should be proud of the ethical norms that its commanders enforce. . . . The [Blackman] case is described here because we sometimes have to observe others to understand that we are a lot more normal than the way our media often depict us. The incident is cited here in the context of those, and there are too many of them, who stigmatize Israel. That’s enough, guys. . . . We’re tired of the endless celebration of self-made demonization.

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.