In Mahjong: A Chinese Game and the Making of Modern American Culture, Annelise Heinz tells how this game, which originated in China during the 19th century, made its way to the U.S., and became especially popular with Jews—who, as Menachem Wecker notes in his review, often lived “cheek-by-jowl” with Chinese immigrant communities. Wecker writes:

The Americanized version of mahjong afforded Jewish Americans—and women in particular—“careful entry into the mainstream while still maintaining group distinctiveness by using a third reference point, China, to remain both outside and inside ‘domestic’ American culture,” Heinz writes in the book.

As interest in mahjong waned somewhat in the 1930s, Jews continued to play, and the game became associated increasingly with the Jewish community—and with Jewish women in particular.

The game spread among “snowbird” Jews in Florida retirement communities and those who vacationed in the “Borscht Belt” of the Catskill Mountains in upstate New York.

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.