A recent article in the New York Times complained of a “right-wing Jewish settler group” that “has moved hundreds of Jews” into the predominantly Arab eastern Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan. But, notes Luke Moon, the article says nothing about the area’s history:

Silwan’s first inhabitants were Yemenite Jews who in 1881 spent six months traveling to Jerusalem. These Jews were inspired to travel the long, arduous journey on the [expectation] that the messiah would come to Jerusalem the following year. . . . Settling on the eastern slopes of the Kidron Valley, [they] built a thriving community and established a synagogue, the same synagogue that the “right-wing Jewish settler group” is rebuilding.

Perhaps an article that mentions the 5,000 Arab inhabitants of Silwan might mention how it became a Palestinian neighborhood when it started as a Yemenite Jewish village. As the inhabitants in Jerusalem felt more confident to move out of the walled city, the original village expanded to include not just Jews but also Muslim and Christian Arabs, too. An early British Mandate-period census shows Silwan to be a mixed village of almost 2,000 people, of whom the Jews made up about 10 percent. But during the 1936–39 Arab Revolt, the village of Silwan was ethnically cleansed of all Jews, and Arab families moved into the homes of Yemenite Jews. One might wonder if the descendants of those Yemenite Jews still have the keys to their homes.

Moreover, the very name Silwan derives from the Siloam Pool, the First Temple-era water source mentioned, as Moon goes on to explain, in both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, and significant to Jews and Christians alike.

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.