Founded in 2004 by IDF veterans, Breaking the Silence aims to expose the supposed wrongdoings of the Israeli military in the West Bank. In her recent Hebrew-language book Who Do You Think You Are?, Yuli Novak, who served as the group’s director until 2017, reflects on the internal turmoil she has experienced in the ensuing years and explains how she came to reject Zionism altogether. Einat Wilf finds the book cliché-ridden and solipsistic, while the author comes across as a “petulant child.” Moreover, writes Wilf, Novak’s argument rests on false premises:

The first is that Jewish citizens of Israel do not know what is involved in exercising military control over Palestinians in the West Bank. . . . If they knew, they would end it. Therefore, there is a need to “break the silence” surrounding the “occupation. This is a tantalizing idea. It appeals to the human desire to uncover dark secrets lurking beneath the surface. . . . It also confers a halo of martyrdom on those willing to break the so-called silence.

If only. The last thing surrounding Israel’s military control of the West Bank since 1967 is silence. From the moment Israel’s military has come to control the West Bank area captured from the kingdom of Jordan, following King Hussein’s ill-fated decision to follow the charismatic Nasser into that disastrous war, there has been nothing but noise about it. Articles, interviews, reports, commentaries, documentaries, photos, video footage, movies, political debates, UN resolutions, international pronouncements, NGOs, movements, posts, tweets, memes. . . . There is no silence to be broken.

Almost all of those who serve or have served in Israel’s military had to contribute to maintaining that military control, from intelligence gathering to incarceration to boots on the ground. Israelis who serve in the military talk. Israeli Jews (and Arabs) are not known for their reticence in the use of words.

Worse, the entire book centers around the author’s feelings about morality. She felt “Breaking the Silence” was the moral thing to do. And then “it didn’t work out anymore,” “it was too difficult,” “it was in my head,” “something was broken inside me and I didn’t know what,” “I couldn’t anymore,” “It was too much responsibility,” “too much fear,” “too much loneliness.” It just didn’t “feel” right.

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.