Israel has been repeatedly condemned for supposedly being too neutral toward Russia after its invasion of Ukraine. But as Michael Oren argues, whatever scant evidence such criticism rested on has vanished. While asserting that Israel could do still more to help the beleaguered country, Oren lists the ways in which Jerusalem has “taken a principled stand.” (Subscription required.)

Israel supported a [United Nations] General Assembly resolution denouncing Russia’s aggression. More recently, the Jewish state has called for Russia’s ouster from the UN Human Rights Council. Explaining the vote, the Israeli foreign minister Yair Lapid stated that “intentionally harming a civilian population is a war crime and I strongly condemn it.” Moscow’s Foreign Ministry responded with a blistering censure of his “anti-Russian attack.”

On the humanitarian front, Israel has been anything but dispassionate. In addition to shipping 100 tons of medical equipment, clothing, food, and other supplies to displaced Ukrainians, Israel set up the first foreign field hospital operating inside Ukrainian territory. A special unit in the Foreign Ministry is coordinating the transfer of individual and corporate donations to Israeli and international aid organizations assisting Ukrainian refugees.

These are hardly the actions of a neutral state. Though some observers would prefer Israel took an even firmer stance, they should consider how much easier it would have been for the Jewish state to remain entirely neutral. Among many incentives not to upset Moscow is the large Russian-speaking population in Israel and its need to maintain ties with their families back in Russia. There’s also Israel’s responsibility to the hundreds of institutions—daycare centers, senior-citizen facilities, schools—that serve Russia’s approximately 600,000 Jews. Such ties could be jeopardized by an anti-Putin position.

So, too, might the Israeli military’s ability to strike targets in Syria, which Iran is trying to transform into an offensive front against Israel. Doing so requires Israel to coordinate its actions with the thousands of Russian troops stationed in Syria. If Russia were to refuse to do this, it could cost Israeli lives.

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.