In an essay titled “I Used to Be a Human Being,” the journalist Andrew Sulllivan bemoans the effects on the human spirit of the constant influx of information from cell phones and computers. Responding, Elliot Kaufman proposes the Jewish Sabbath as the perfect antidote:

[The] lack of access to information, previously a constraint on action, has been reduced to an afterthought. Man has broken out of his chains. It is funny then, that our liberated man looks so much like a slave, falling prey to mechanized algorithms that target him with exactly the type of clickbait article he has proved unable to resist. If it is in this way that man has been liberated, he has merely become free to surrender to his appetites; or put differently, we were correct to enshrine the pursuit of happiness, not mediocrity. . . .

So what if, one day per week, we said no to the noise? . . . No to knowing about everything going on in the world. . . .

[B]eginning to observe Shabbat has allowed me to follow my people’s ancient rhythms of life; I know that they, too, are mine, and that they are good. The rabbis teach that one becomes free only by submitting to the discipline of Shabbat—forgoing all work, electricity, and more from Friday night to Saturday night. Putting down our phones doesn’t handcuff us; it removes the handcuffs that were already on. . . .

The amount of time that I use well on the Sabbath is probably measurable in minutes rather than hours. But where else can we start our journey of renewal, if not from the beginning? God didn’t rest on the seventh day because He was tired. God rested because He knew silence was holy, liberating, and good for the soul, and He was gracious enough to let us in on the secret. Thankfulness and imitatio dei are in order.

Surveying news websites and social media on Sunday morning, I immediately found some intelligent and well-informed observers arguing that Iran deliberately warned the U.S. of its pending assault on Israel, and calibrated it so that there would be few casualties and minimal destructiveness, thus hoping to avoid major retaliation. In other words, this massive barrage was a face-saving gesture by the ayatollahs. Others disagreed. Brian Carter and Frederick W. Kagan put the issue to rest:

The Iranian April 13 missile-drone attack on Israel was very likely intended to cause significant damage below the threshold that would trigger a massive Israeli response. The attack was designed to succeed, not to fail. The strike package was modeled on those the Russians have used repeatedly against Ukraine to great effect. The attack caused more limited damage than intended likely because the Iranians underestimated the tremendous advantages Israel has in defending against such strikes compared with Ukraine.

But that isn’t to say that Tehran achieved nothing:

The lessons that Iran will draw from this attack will allow it to build more successful strike packages in the future. The attack probably helped Iran identify the relative strengths and weaknesses of the Israeli air-defense system. Iran will likely also share the lessons it learned in this attack with Russia.

Iran’s ability to penetrate Israeli air defenses with even a small number of large ballistic missiles presents serious security concerns for Israel. The only Iranian missiles that got through hit an Israeli military base, limiting the damage, but a future strike in which several ballistic missiles penetrate Israeli air defenses and hit Tel Aviv or Haifa could cause significant civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure, including ports and energy. . . . Israel and its partners should not emerge from this successful defense with any sense of complacency.