Last week, a video circulated the Internet of a Palestinian teenager named Ahed Tamimi insulting and taunting two Israeli soldiers. When they didn’t respond, she proceeded to slap, shove, and kick them while her friends videotaped the scene and encouraged her. The incident concluded only when they walked away, although Tamimi was subsequently arrested and is now in custody. Hillel Frisch argues that the IDF does itself no favors by letting such behavior go unpunished:

This . . . incident . . . can only dampen young people’s willingness to join [combat] units [when they enter the military]. Israeli youth will ask themselves, quite reasonably, why they should not only put their lives on the line but tolerate such humiliation as well. . . . Prospective soldiers don’t want to become victims of the doctrine of turning the other cheek.

This incident also sends a dangerous signal to the many Palestinians who want to harm Israelis. Anyone viewing the two-minute video can clearly see how the number of people encouraging the assault grew as the passivity of the officers continued. It begins with two girls, a third joins in, and then [Tamimi’s] mother enters the fray with two young boys. The assault also becomes increasingly brazen in the face of the officers’ passivity.

One can safely assume that the weaker the IDF looks, the greater will be the willingness of Palestinians to join the ranks of attackers in larger, more charged, and more dangerous scenarios. Israel must make clear that turning the other cheek is not its doctrine.

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.