The recent Knesset legislation that bans activists affiliated with the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement from entering Israel has sparked condemnations from a variety of corners in the Diaspora, including from the Anti-Defamation League and a number of liberal Zionists. While sympathetic to the rationale for the law, and for other legislative attempts to fight the activities of anti-Israel non-governmental organizations (NGOs), Gerald Steinberg argues that Israeli politicians have the wrong approach. (Free registration required.)

To their critics, [such] restrictions are assaults on democracy [or] worse. But for Israeli politicians on the right and center of the political spectrum, the BDS visa law, like other measures, was a necessary response to the ugly political war being waged against the Jewish state. Such policies provide headlines for the politicians and show determination to defeat the demonization campaigns that libel [Israel] and cavalierly accuse IDF soldiers of war crimes. Similarly, Israeli politicians repeatedly denounce groups like Breaking the Silence and B’tselem, whose leaders travel the world condemning the IDF, annoying large segments of the Israeli public (not only the right). These attacks are largely ineffective, [however,] and they allow the NGOs to portray themselves as victims of a witch-hunt.

Similarly, for many Zionists around the world who are not interested in domestic Israeli politics, the BDS legislation and similar policies are entirely counterproductive. The use of legislation (especially measures that will not pass scrutiny by the courts), regulations, and other [political] approaches causes significant damage to Israel’s international image. The picture that emerges is one of a powerful, aggressive government harassing weak NGOs. . . .

[I]nstead of attempting to use state power against the NGOs that lead BDS and lawfare campaigns [against the Jewish state], Israeli politicians should leave the counter-attacks to the [pro-Israel] NGOs that have proven effective on this front. In this “soft-power” conflict, NGOs have a major advantage over governments: [they] do not have to please voters and are able to build alliances with different actors in Israel and abroad.

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.