In the Indian city of Alibaug, located some 60 miles south of Mumbai, a street-side drink stand that sells sodas produced and bottled by its owner is considered a major local attraction. It is also a persistent remnant of Alibaug’s Jewish history. Namita Devidayal writes:

With its Mangalore-tiled roof and Marathi signs, this could be any other drink stand [in this part of India], if it weren’t for the star of David and pictures of Moses that hang on the wall. This quaint beverage stop, which serves an array of delicious bespoke carbonated drinks like ginger-lemon soda, ice-cream soda, and masala soda, was founded 80 years ago by a Bene Israel Jew, Daniel Samson Digodkar.

Like many of his brethren—at one time there was a population of several thousand Jews in this area, and a synagogue still stands tall in Alibaug—his first name, Daniel, attests to the Jewish heritage, while the surname acknowledges his [native] village, Digodia. This intermingling of names reflects the manner in which the [local] Jews have commingled the regional culture with their very particular rituals, dissolving like sugar into water—in this particular case, carbonated water. . . .

For the longest time, the Bene Israel of Alibaug ran rice and oil-pressing mills. When the Digodkars’ mill shut down, Daniel Samson pursued a personal passion—creating flavorful drinks, first with a marble inside the bottle to contain the bubbles, later with sealed caps. When he died, his sister Mary Moses David took over. Her son Sydney is one of the last in the family—indeed in the community—left here today. . . .

While Alibaug once had the highest concentration of Jews in the area, most of them, including the Digodkars, have now emigrated to Israel.

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.