In January, Israel’s National Insurance Institute (NII) released its yearly report on the economic situation of the citizenry, which paints a shocking picture, suggesting that one fourth of Israeli children live in poverty. Another government report puts the number at one in three. But, Amiad Cohen argues, these indices represent “a statistical fiction, radically different from the reality.” Worse still, the most recent NII statistics were deliberately reworked when the initial set appeared to downplay the effects of the pandemic:

In other words, the poverty indices misrepresent the number of people in serious financial need, often increasing [it] dramatically. These reports measure only a certain type of income and its distribution across society. They do not measure material deprivation and therefore do not provide any measure that would allow for the formulation of a policy to eradicate poverty.

The poverty index also completely ignores property ownership. Imagine that with hard work and good luck you [took the company you own public] and have a huge fortune of $10 million in your bank account. Thanks to this great fortune you have allowed yourself to go on a one-year vacation. During this year, you do not have a regular income. Well, according to the poverty index . . . you are considered “poor.”

Because the official poverty indices are flawed, government welfare policy based on these statistics does not and cannot provide a proper solution to real poverty. In the name of a “War on Poverty,” the government of Israel invests huge sums, much of which are wasted. [These expenditures make] only marginal contributions to those who are truly poor and suffering from severe material deprivation.

[These] problematic measurement methods are an excellent tool for preserving the power of the NII and for preserving the power of politicians. The way in which poverty rates are measured in Israel allows authorities to “play” with the data and move (through welfare distributions) families from below the poverty line above it, without contributing to their social mobility and without improving their real earning capacity. Unlike other in-kind income, the benefits are included in the calculated income and thus “results” can be easily achieved.

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.