Rejecting much conventional wisdom about the possibilities of a two-state solution, Gershon Hacohen argues that any discussion of the Jewish state’s security challenges must begin with a discussion of its values:

Ultimately, one can’t discuss how to defend Israel’s existence without first touching on . . . what it is being defended for. We Israelis are not simply here in order to live securely; promises by U.S. presidents that America will always protect us do not impress me. If all I want is security, I might as well bring the entire population to Tel Aviv and build a huge fortress. Alternatively, I could move to Palo Alto, which has a better quality of life and greater opportunities. A U.S. general who told me that “at the end of the day everyone wants the same things—restaurants that are open until midnight and kids that can get safely to school”—deeply misunderstands me, because I can get all of that in New Jersey. . . .

[W]hen discussing security it’s important to emphasize that something beyond pure security exists, which lies in the realm of values and vision. I believe that the essence of Zionism is to live in the land of Israel, the land of our forefathers. We didn’t come here for a Jewish majority or even for sovereignty but rather simply to live in the land.

After analyzing what he sees as nearly insurmountable challenges to defending Israel effectively with a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Hacohen concludes that he counts himself “among those who believe that Israelis have no chance other than to live together with Arabs.”

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.