Princeton University Press has just released a new edition of the 1923 novel Bambi: A Story of Life in the Forest, translated from the original German by Jack Zipes and with new illustrations by Alenka Sottler. Written by the Austrian-Jewish journalist (and Zionist) Felix Salten, the novel is a grim tale originally directed toward adults rather than children. As Zipes puts it in his introduction, it is “an allegory about the weak and powerless in the world.” Judy Gruen notes the parallels between Salten’s experiences as a Jew and those of the hunted creatures he depicts in Bambi.

Many of the animal characters in Bambi have colorful personalities, but also live with the understanding that life can end in an instant. . . . Bambi’s harsh experiences in life, facing constant threats and frequent losses, turn him into a loner.

Bambi’s mother teaches him from his earliest days always to be aware of danger, to watch her movements before following. She warns him that he must learn to live alone one day, remaining ever vigilant of the often invisible and silent dangers surrounding him. When young Bambi cannot understand why his mother will only allow frolicking in the meadow during the nighttime, she explains that daytime is a time of grave danger. Though we all love daylight, his mother says, “we must live this way and be on the alert whenever we move about.”

It is easy to see this as a parable about endangered minority members — particularly Jews—also having to keep watch of their surroundings.

Felix Salten learned this lesson personally. He was born in Pest, Hungary in 1869 as Siegmund Salzmann, descended from a long line of rabbis on his father’s side. Thousands of Jews lived in the Austro-Hungarian empire during that time. . . . Despite their efforts to assimilate and adapt as much as they knew how, Zipes observes, “adaptation never meant full acceptance.”

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.