Two weeks ago, Prince Charles arrived in Israel for the funeral of Shimon Peres, after which he privately, if not secretly, went to the Mount of Olives to visit the grave of his grandmother, Princess Alice of Battenberg—who, among other things, had sheltered Jews in Nazi-occupied Greece. This was Charles’ second time in the country, the first being for the funeral of Yitzḥak Rabin, but neither he nor his mother has ever paid an official state visit. The editors of the Jerusalem Post urge the royal family to reconsider its apparent policy:

It was alleged . . . that the royal family has refrained from visiting [Princess Alice’s resting place] because of its location in the eastern part of Jerusalem, and its desire to remain neutral in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The fact that the British consulate is located in eastern Jerusalem has never been cited as a danger to British neutrality. Similarly, the Commonwealth Cemetery on Mount Scopus, housing the remains of British soldiers from World War I, regularly commemorates their sacrifice. And as far as neutrality goes, Charles had no problem attending the Peres funeral on Mount Herzl, which the Palestinian narrative lays claim to no less than to Tel Aviv and the rest of the “occupation.” . . .

[I]t is strange that in 68 years, the royal family has not visited Israel in an official capacity—this despite the long history the Jewish people shares with the United Kingdom.

The royal family will have an opportunity soon to make amends. Next year, Israel and the UK will mark the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, which supported the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in the Land of Israel. Balfour wrote the letter in the name of “His Majesty’s Government.” After 100 years, it is time for the current majesties to show where they stand.

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.