In June, a U.S. court of appeals ruled on the case of Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran, in which the family of Naftali Fraenkel—a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen who was kidnapped and murdered by Hamas in 2014—sued Iran and Syria over their support for the terrorist group. According to federal statute, American citizens, like Fraenkel’s mother and siblings, are allowed to sue foreign governments for their role in committing and assisting acts of terror. The federal district court that first heard their case found in the Fraenkels’ favor, but it awarded them a sum far smaller than what precedent would dictate. Michal Navoth explains:

[The district court] determined that Rachel Fraenkel and her six surviving children had provided satisfactory evidence that Iran and Syria, two state sponsors of terrorism, are legally responsible for the abduction and murder of Naftali, because of the longstanding material support and resources provided to Hamas by Iran and Syria that allowed Hamas to flourish as a terrorist organization.

The evidence demonstrated that during the time leading up to the abduction and murder, the two countries provided funds, weapons, and training to [Hamas]. The district court noted that although no evidence has been given “directly linking a weapon or a dollar provided by Iran and Syria to the kidnapping and murder of Naftali,” both countries were hostile to Israel and knew of Hamas’s tactics and ideological goals and supported its efforts. The hostage-taking and murder were foreseeable consequences of Iran and Syria’s support and assistance to Hamas. . . .

Not only did the district court deny the motion for reconsideration of [the amount awarded], but in its decision on reconsideration the district court also stated that the Fraenkels accepted the risk by living in a community built across the Green Line [that divides the West Bank from the rest of Israel], and sending Naftali for high school in Gush Etzion, which is about six miles from Hebron, a predominantly Palestinian city. In so determining, the court imposed responsibility on innocent parents of an innocent victim, who was abducted and murdered by terrorists.

Although the appeals court eventually reversed the decision, the fact that a judge could determine that Jewish blood is worth less on the West Bank is a troubling one.

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.