In his book Letters to My Palestinian Neighbor, published in May, Yossi Klein Halevi attempts to explain the Israeli “narrative” to an imagined Palestinian correspondent, in an effort to foster the sort of dialogue and mutual understanding that he believes must precede peace. Reviewing the book for the New York Times, the Palestinian writer Raja Shehadeh has criticized it for, in effect, attempting to win Palestinians over to the Israeli perspective. Klein Halevi responds in an open letter to Shehadeh:

My intention was not, as you write, to turn Palestinians into “Zionists, to embrace the narrative of Jewish suffering and redemption . . . as a prerequisite to peace.” In my book I repeatedly write that neither side can or should abandon its narrative, that we are peoples who define themselves by their stories. Your book didn’t lead me to replace my people’s narrative with yours. But you helped me . . . open myself to another perspective.

A prerequisite for peace is that we stop denying the right of the other to exist—to define itself as a people with rights to sovereignty in this land. I don’t expect Palestinians to accept my narrative of what happened in 1948 or 1967. But neither do I see how peace is possible if the Palestinian national movement continues to tell a story about the Jews that denies our very identity as a people with a 4,000-year connection to this land.

You write that you have Israeli friends and have made “serious attempts . . . to appreciate their worldviews.” But most Palestinians have not had that opportunity. Instead, what they hear in their media is a relentless denial of any legitimacy of Jewish history. What Palestinians “know” about the Jews is that we invented our ancient presence here, distorted the archaeological evidence, [and] lied about the existence of a temple on the Temple Mount. That is the normative and unchallenged account of my people’s story in your people’s public space.

I have received some moving responses to my book from Palestinians who, along with their deep criticisms of Israel, write that the time has come for Palestinians to come to terms with the legitimacy of the Jewish presence. But almost all of them have asked that I not publicize their names because of fear of retribution. Can one publicly say, in Palestinian society today, that this land belongs to two peoples, that this is a conflict between two legitimate narratives, that the Jews are uprooted natives who returned home?

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.