Located in southwestern Missouri amid the Ozark Mountains, Springfield is the state’s third-largest city. Its Jewish community is the subject of a recent book by Mara Cohen Ioannides, published by the local county historical society. Andrew Sullender writes:

According to [Ioannides’s] research, the first Jews in Springfield were among a flux of German immigrants following the civil war, the first of which was Ludwig Ullman. Having previously worked as a Union Army doctor, Ullman came to Springfield between 1861 and 1864 to open a pharmacy downtown. He later was a founding member of the Springfield Medical Association.

“German immigrants coming to southwest Missouri were both Christian and Jewish, but the German community at the time didn’t differentiate between the groups, they were all Germans. They all saw themselves as culturally the same. So, Jews were accepted in associations where there were other Germans who were accepted,” Ioannides said.

Jews in Springfield became merchants and business owners in the downtown square. These families began worshipping together for several years before opening Temple Israel in 1893. The 128-year-old synagogue remains the place of worship for Springfield’s Jewish community to this day. At the time of its opening, only twenty Jews from Springfield and the surrounding areas worshipped there.

When Jews first immigrated to Missouri, prejudice was much less than was found in many large cities, according to Ioannides. “Small town anti-Semitism tended to be subtle,” [she added]. Because of this subtlety, there has been no documented violence against the Jewish community. But that does not mean they have not faced bigotry.

Yesterday I saw an unconfirmed report that the Biden administration has offered Israel a massive arms deal in exchange for a promise not to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities. Even if the report is incorrect, there is plenty of other evidence that the White House has been trying to dissuade Jerusalem from mounting such an attack. The thinking behind this pressure is hard to fathom, as there is little Israel could do that would better serve American interests in the Middle East than putting some distance between the ayatollahs and nuclear weapons. Aaron MacLean explains why this is so, in the context of a broader discussion of strategic priorities in the Middle East and elsewhere:

If the Iran issue were satisfactorily adjusted in the direction of the American interest, the question of Israel’s security would become more manageable overnight. If a network of American partners enjoyed security against state predation, the proactive suppression of militarily less serious threats like Islamic State would be more easily organized—and indeed, such partners would be less vulnerable to the manipulation of powers external to the region.

[The Biden administration’s] commitment to escalation avoidance has had the odd effect of making the security situation in the region look a great deal as it would if America had actually withdrawn [from the Middle East].

Alternatively, we could project competence by effectively backing our Middle East partners in their competitions against their enemies, who are also our enemies, by ensuring a favorable overall balance of power in the region by means of our partnership network, and by preventing Iran from achieving nuclear status—even if it courts escalation with Iran in the shorter run.