The 17th century in what is now Germany saw the emergence of “court Jews”: Jewish businessmen who served local potentates by procuring arms and supplies for the military, providing financial backing, and often giving advice. By far the most famous court Jew was Joseph Süss Oppenheimer, the subject of anti-Semitic legend, of an infamous Nazi film titled Jud Süss, and now of a scholarly study by Yair Mintzker. Jonathan Steinberg writes in his review:

Oppenheimer . . . was a very wealthy and powerful figure, who served a number of princes in southwest Germany, most notably Duke Carl Alexander of Württemberg, for whom he acted as financial adviser and master of the mint. Shortly after Carl Alexander’s death in March 1737, Oppenheimer was arrested and accused of numerous crimes, including embezzlement, adultery, debasement of the coinage, and treason. After months of imprisonment and interrogation, he was put on trial. He was found guilty and publicly hanged in Stuttgart on February 4, 1738. . . .

What really happened? Was Oppenheimer guilty? What was his trial like? The complexity of the story has led Yair Mintzker to adopt a very unusual technique. He calls his book “a polyvocal, critical work of scholarship: a polyphonic history.” He provides four accounts, each with its own dedicated chapter, of the trial, examining the case in turn from the perspectives of four individuals connected with it. . . At the end of each chapter, Mintzker answers methodological questions and defends his technique in a dialogue with an imaginary critic who raises doubts and difficulties. . . .

Whatever approximation to the truth the polyphonic method yields, it brings the society and its protagonists to life in a way I have never seen before. On account of the rich texture of the evidence, the ancien régime becomes real, while Mintzker’s lively prose turns the case into a detective story.

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.