Early this year, after long and arduous negotiations, representatives of the Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform denominations, together with figures from the Israeli government, worked out a compromise to allow for mixed-sex prayer at the Western Wall. The agreement, however, was tabled before going into effect due to opposition from ultra-Orthodox parties in the Knesset and is now in danger of being jettisoned completely. To Natan Sharansky—who, as head of the Jewish Agency, was the prime architect of the deal—doing so could cause lasting damage:

[T]he compromise reached over the Wall was truly remarkable. . . . [It] granted legitimacy to non-Orthodox communities while acknowledging that Orthodoxy remains Israel’s de-facto religious common denominator. The proposed arrangement, in turn, received the support of a huge majority of the Israeli government. Each of the parties to this unprecedented agreement understood something that their respective constituencies tend to overlook.

On one side, the representatives of the Israeli religious and political establishments recognized that Reform and Conservative Jewry are not fringe sects, as some in Israel seem to imagine, but important venues for large numbers of Jews who reject the strictures of Orthodoxy yet want to remain part of the Jewish people. . . .

For their part, the non-Orthodox parties to the agreement recognized that Orthodoxy’s preeminence in Israel is not an accident. Rather, it stems from the historic need for a unifying religious force in the Jewish state. . . .

[T]o abandon the Wall agreement now is to legitimate extremism, to alienate large groups of fellow Jews, and to allow discord to poison our public life further. . . . Anyone who cares about the future of the Jewish people should care about this issue.

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.