To show their congregations’ dissatisfaction with recent changes in U.S. immigration policy, some synagogues have declared themselves “sanctuaries” where those who have entered the country illegally can hide from law enforcement. Jonathan Tobin objects:

These institutions and their supporters say their decision is grounded in justice, history, and even Jewish liturgy [and canonical texts]. . . . The notion of “sanctuary” can [indeed] be traced to the Bible, [which prescribes the establishment of] “cities of refuge.” But there is no analogy between illegal immigration and a law to shield those who had committed manslaughter so as to prevent them from being killed outright as a matter of . . . blood vengeance. Jews are [likewise] commanded to “welcome the strangers” in their midst. . . . But here again, the link to contemporary controversies breaks down because nothing in Jewish law grants foreigners the right to enter the country and stay indefinitely without permission.

Far more compelling [at first blush] are arguments based in recent history. Liberals say that as the descendants of immigrants, Jews should support new arrivals. Most emotively, they point to the enactment of restrictive U.S. immigration laws in the 1920s that were aimed in part at European Jews and then America’s refusal to provide a safe haven for those fleeing the Nazi death machine. . . . But the notion that the Syrians, let alone those streaming over the border from Mexico, are analogous to Jews who were all marked for death by the Nazis is absurd. . . .

Few of those who might take advantage of sanctuary synagogues are actually fleeing persecution, and they can petition the government and courts for asylum. The overwhelming majority . . . are economic migrants. We can sympathize with their plight, but the hyperbolic claims about their being victims of injustice has little basis in fact. They broke a reasonable law enacted by a legitimate government, not a tyrannical regime, and like all those who violate the law, they don’t wish to be held accountable.

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.