In a recent episode of National Public Radio’s This American Life, the host, Ira Glass, described an attempt to interview some ḥasidic Jews in a Brooklyn neighborhood thus:

Walking up to Hasids [sic] on the street felt like walking up to people from another planet. People had a general air of hostility or at least suspicion to outsiders like me. They waved me off.

Leibel Baumgarten, himself both a ḥasidic Jew and an avid listener to the show, comments:

This American Life has covered hundreds of communities across the country, including many reluctant to talk to reporters. Have any other minorities been described in the same way? Did we hear about the “air of hostility” coming from another religious group? I didn’t think so.

[This is exactly] why Glass was treated with suspicion by ḥasidic passers-by. We Ḥasidim are used to people coming to gawk at us—and we’re weary of how almost every story about ḥasidic Jews gets framed in the media. Had Glass stopped me for an interview, I too would have refused, . . . because I would have known there would be a strong likelihood my words would get twisted or edited selectively to support a narrative that would not be kind to us. From the New York Times to CNN, from blogs to podcasts, ḥasidic Jews are mythical creatures living in a bubble only the bravest and most intrepid reporters can infiltrate.

The Jewish community in Crown Heights, as well as Borough Park, Williamsburg, and other parts of Brooklyn, experiences anti-Semitism daily, often violently. The media’s [treatment] of ḥasidim no doubt contributes to the view of us as being “different” or “special” and somehow worthy of being attacked.

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.