Answering the question “Why am I Zionist?” Douglas Feith writes:

There are negative reasons to be a Zionist, and there are affirmative reasons. The negative ones, which relate to historical anti-Jewish hatred and abuse, make the humanitarian case for Zionism—that the Jews need a state because they need a refuge. That argument launched the Zionist movement in the 19th century, and it remains valid to this day.

The affirmative reasons relate to Jewish civilization. They boil down to the conviction that Jewish culture is an invaluable inheritance that only in the Land of Israel, in a state with a Jewish majority, can be developed fully and perpetuated reliably. . . . Israel is not just a refuge and bastion. For the Jews as a people, it is the “organic center.”

To be a Zionist is to revel in the ways Israel has integrated Jewish principles and traditions into the daily life of a large modern democratic society. Though liberal and secular, Israel is a Jewish state. What does that mean? It means that the Jews are in the majority. Their collective interests prevail, so they enjoy the dignity of self-reliance and self-defense. Hebrew is the main language. Jewish history inspires the geographical names. Jewish subjects have a special place in the schools. The Jewish religious calendar influences the rhythm of life. Every Friday afternoon, even in nonreligious neighborhoods, one can hear the hush of Sabbath descend. Britain, Sweden, and other democracies have crosses on their flags, while Israel has a Star of David. And the interests of Jewry as such are a primary concern of the national government.

None of this is so in any other country in the world.

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.