The historian Dan Schwartz explains the largely forgotten—and monumental—effects of World War I on Jewish history, including the mass participation of Jewish soldiers in the fighting and the conflict’s impact on Zionism:

In the debates about granting Jews [legal] equality, which dated back to before the French Revolution, the question was, “Can we really trust Jews to be good soldiers? Can we really trust them to be patriots?” The argument was made that, “Look, Jews will be more loyal to their fellow Jews than they will be to people in this particular nation.” World War I certainly is not the first time that Jews fought on opposite sides. . . . In the American Civil War, Jews fought for both sides, as they did early in the 19th century in the various Napoleonic wars. But on nothing approaching this scale.

World War I was [also] a turning point . . . because two of the most significant events of the Jewish 20th century—the Holocaust and the creation of the state of Israel—are almost unimaginable without World War I.

By the second decade of the 20th century, modern anti-Semitism, which had emerged in the late 19th century, seemed, for the most part, to have petered out as a political movement. But World War I gave it new life. The German experience in the war—its defeat, its [perceived] humiliation by the Allies, and the scapegoating of Jews for the economic, social, and political turmoil that followed—set in motion the events leading to the Holocaust.

Similarly, Zionism was a late-19th-century movement that as of 1914 seemed to have run into a brick wall. The Ottoman empire was implacably opposed to Zionism, basically preventing Zionists from immigrating, [or] at least from purchasing land. Even though the war itself was initially damaging to Zionism and to the [early Jewish settlers of Palestine], the alliance [with Britain] and the Balfour Declaration that came from it enabled the movement to develop. This is something that could not have been anticipated [prior to the outbreak of war] in 1914.

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.