Writing in the New York Times, the architecture critic Michael Kimmelman stated that “modern Jerusalem was spared Disneyfication, first by the highborn culture of British colonialism . . . and next by Jordanian paralysis, which froze the Old City as if in amber.” But, contrary to what Kimmelman asserts, Jordan’s occupation of the city from 1948 to 1967 was anything but paralytic, including as it did the systematic destruction of synagogues and cemeteries, not to mention the expulsion of Jews. Meir Soloveichik writes:

[Kimmelman’s] words could have been written out of astonishing ignorance or of deliberate dishonesty. There is, however, another pernicious possibility: that for the New York Times, the preservation of Jerusalem is entirely consistent with the destruction of its Jewish sanctuaries and the eradication of its Jewish presence. . . .

To illustrate his point, Soloveichik takes as an example the Ḥurvah synagogue, whose name itself means “ruin” because its original structure (built in the 18th century) was destroyed by an Arab mob before it was rebuilt in the 19th century. In 1948, the Jordanians again reduced the Ḥurvah to ruins:

The Ḥurvah has been recently rebuilt; its dome gleams above the Jewish Quarter, and its interior is again one of the aesthetic wonders of the Jewish world. Meanwhile, no correction has been made to the Times’s own distortion. In the end, perhaps what bothers the purveyors of lies such as these is less the “Disneyfication” of Jerusalem and more that all of Jewish Jerusalem, through the ages, is akin to the Ḥurvah itself: it constantly rises from the ruins, thereby embodying a Jewish people that, phoenix-like, refuses to die, and eternally ascends from the ashes.

This is a miracle that raises an uncomfortable possibility: that all that Jews claim about Jerusalem—and the Jews—is true. The theological implications of this may be too terrifying for the Times, as for some of its writers and readers. And so it must be fought—not only politically, but with a steady stream of propaganda that goes so far as to pretend preposterously that one of the greatest modern acts of historical vandalism, destruction, and denial of religious rights never occurred.

In the end, there is only one Jerusalem that is eternally preserved, as if in amber: it is the Jerusalem that resides in the Jewish soul, a dream and a vision that the lies of the “paper of record” are impotent to affect, and that is the ultimate embodiment of Jewish eternity.

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.