Last summer, a group of British Jews affiliated with left-wing Zionist youth groups wrote an open letter to the Jewish Chronicle—the UK’s most prominent Jewish publication—proclaiming their support for “ending the occupation.” In its editorial response, the Chronicle took the letter as a sign of a general leftward shift among British Jewry on questions relating to the Jewish state. Simon Gordon is not convinced:

The available data does not indicate a leftward shift. [The left-wing British Zionist organization] Yachad’s own survey of the attitudes of British Jews toward Israel . . . found that 60 percent agreed that there is no Palestinian partner for peace, 70 percent said Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state if they want peace, and 93 percent thought Israel was entitled to take military action to combat Hamas rockets and tunnels. Such views are hardly out of step with those of the Israeli government. This may explain why the Jewish Chronicle’s poll of British Jews prior to the 2015 Israeli elections . . . found that 67 percent would vote Likud, with just 22 percent backing the Zionist Union. . . .

If communal leaders are out of step with the Jewish community on Israel, the misalignment is not the one suggested in the open letter. Far from marginalizing the New Israel Fund, [a group dedicated to making Israel reflect “progressive values”], and progressive youth groups, as the open letter alleges, the institutions of Anglo-Jewry have been all too receptive. The limp defense of Israel by the Board of Deputies [the most important lay representative of organized British Jewry] during the 2014 Gaza War prompted a furious backlash from Jews at a townhall event, who felt [the Board] should have adopted a much more muscular stance. . . .

Misalignment between Jewish institutions and the Jewish community occurs when the leadership mistakes the views of a vocal minority for those of the silent majority. The available evidence suggests that mainstream Anglo-Jewry supports Israel, its government, and the actions of its military, much as it has done for decades.

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.