Reviewing the National Yiddish Theater’s Yiddish-language production of the 1964 musical Fiddler on the Roof—itself based on Yiddish stories of Sholem Aleichem—Madeleine Kearns discerns a story with a deeply conservative message:

Conservatism necessarily involves compromise. That’s why it is such a precarious endeavor. You could say—as the dairyman Tevye does in Fiddler on the Roof—that it’s like a “fiddler on the roof trying to scratch out a pleasant, simple tune without breaking his neck.” . . .

Joel Grey’s lively revival of this classic is a delight. Fortunately, non-Yiddish-speaking audience members (like me) can follow along with English and Russian surtitles projected on the side of the stage. Grey’s is a modest production. But it brims with character and humor while remaining faithful to the story’s message. . . .

Tevye’s compromise with his daughters [in Fiddler does] not change his view of marriage, but rather it has strengthened his views where they needed strengthening and refined them where they needed refining. Tevye and [his wife] Golde must also learn by their daughters’ example. Namely, that love benefits from affection, not just duty. From youthful spontaneity, not just reliability. Of course, the same is true for his daughters. They, too, must learn from the example set by their parents: love involves sacrifice, it isn’t always sentimental; it’s mostly about doing what’s right by the other person. . . .

[B]y the end of the show, an edict from the tsar will force the Jewish population into exile. As the Jews of Anatevka leave behind the home of their forefathers, they must seek out new places to plant roots. In doing so, both “tradition” and compromise will be essential. . . . The National Yiddish Theatre is doing justice to this timeless conservative show.

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.