While Christian populations throughout the Arab world are in decline—due to discrimination, war, and in some places genocide—Israel is the one state in the region whose Christian population has grown in recent years. Robert Nicholson explains the shared fate of members of the two faiths living in the shadow of Islam, noting that, “as go the Jews in the Middle East, so go the Christians.”

Despite their many differences, these two communities share something positive and profound in the Hebraic tradition—that unique blend of stories and ideas that arise from the pages of the Hebrew Bible. Only Jews and Christians share this text, and both have been influenced by it in ways that are hard to overstate.

Embracing the Hebraic tradition . . . should not be seen as a negative response to Islam any more than a Muslim’s embracing the Islamic tradition should be seen as an insult to Christianity. It is natural and even desirable that communities celebrate their own unique identities. Recognizing who we are as Jews and Christians helps us understand the limits of our civilization and the futility of trying to impose it on others. It frees us to be ourselves and to defend who we are without guilt. . . .

The Middle East is the place in which the Hebraic and Islamic traditions meet. Both share Semitic roots, revere sacred texts, and hold transcendent views of God that trace their origins back to Abraham. It may be argued that a reinvigorated Hebraic tradition will understand Islam much better than the Hellenic tradition has been able to do so far. Religion is a powerful force in the Middle East, and Western diplomats ignore it to their detriment. . . .

A diverse Middle East is a peaceful Middle East. Millions of Muslims understand this, and welcome the presence of these minorities as neighbors.

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.