The german weekly "Die Zeit" ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die_Zeit ) presents us with two narratives we are forced to choose from:

1) The attack was the right thing (By Jan Ross, who by all evidence is in charge of the "Zionist Neocon" view at "Die Zeit" ). Iran is accused of being impossible to deal with, pursuing nuclear weapons by all possible tricks, and, in a distasteful reversal of agency, of having transformed vast swathes of West Asia into battle zones in the name of "resistance". We have always been at war with Irania, so the recent attack is just more of the same (certainly a reasoning that Adolf missed). The Iranian regime is then accused of preferring to "engineer catastophes" rather than "correct course or accept defeat". Yadda Yadda, victory is assured etc. change can no longer be averted, the usual construction of the narrative of "inevitability of the Western Democracy".

2) The attack was arbitrary and dangerous (and, citing Talleyrand, "stupid" ) (Jörg Lau) . For some reason, the obvious fact that Israel is in the driver's seat is dismissed as "conspiracy theory". Otherwise the points cited are "duranesque" except for the last paragraph where "letting the regime get away" is equated with "treason against the courageous Iranians, who threw themselves against the murderous hordes of the state" (sic) "and who now have celebrated the killing of revolutinary leader Chamenei on the streets of Tehran" (sic). It is noted however that "there is no instance in history where air power alone ensured regime change".

Thus endeth the editoral.

Further in the newspaper we get three broadsheet pages of "lived Jewish experience" (complete with a romantic picture of a Menorah) about a Jewish student who got beaten up during a pro-Palestine demonstration in Berlin. In 2024. His being triggered by stickers and posters and removing them reach back to 2023. What should a reader do with this?