According to a recent ruling by Israel’s chief rabbinate, a pious Jew who wishes to eat an artichoke must first remove the leaves and inspect them for insects; any other preparation is a violation of kashrut. Italian Jews, however, have been eating artichokes without such precautions for centuries, and deep-fried whole artichokes are so associated with the Roman Jewish community that they are known simply as carciofi alla giudia. Dan Rabinowitz comments on the earliest Jewish texts that mention the vegetable:

The history of how the fried artichoke became associated with Jews is somewhat murky but likely dates at least to the 16th century. But we have even earlier manuscript evidence that artichokes were eaten by Jews. Indeed, they were eaten at a time when Jews were especially punctilious regarding food: Passover. A number of medieval haggadahs contain illustrations of maror [the bitter herb consumed as part of the seder]; most include a leafy green of some type. Two haggadot, the Rylands and the Brother, composed in the mid-to-late-14th century, depict maror as an artichoke. . . .

Students of history will recall that this is not the first time the norms and traditions of the Italian Jews came into conflict with different prevailing norms among other groups of Jews. [The most notable such incident was] the controversy engendered by the publication of the pamphlet Divrei Shalom v’Emet [“Words of Peace and Truth”] by Naftali Herz Wessely in [1782], which called for educational reform among [Jews in the Hapsburg lands]. After his pamphlet was found objectionable and insulting by leading rabbis, Wessely wrote to rabbis in Italy, believing that many of the ideas he was advocating, like a graded curriculum, a non-exclusive emphasis on Talmud, and use of the [Gentile] vernacular, were well within the norms of their tradition. In fact, with [one] exception, all [of these Italian rabbis] agreed [with Wessely] and supported him.

Analyzing the recent direct Iranian attack on Israel, and Israel’s security situation more generally, Michael Oren looks to the 2015 agreement to restrain Iran’s nuclear program. That, and President Biden’s efforts to resurrect the deal after Donald Trump left it, are in his view the source of the current crisis:

Of the original motivations for the deal—blocking Iran’s path to the bomb and transforming Iran into a peaceful nation—neither remained. All Biden was left with was the ability to kick the can down the road and to uphold Barack Obama’s singular foreign-policy achievement.

In order to achieve that result, the administration has repeatedly refused to punish Iran for its malign actions:

Historians will survey this inexplicable record and wonder how the United States not only allowed Iran repeatedly to assault its citizens, soldiers, and allies but consistently rewarded it for doing so. They may well conclude that in a desperate effort to avoid getting dragged into a regional Middle Eastern war, the U.S. might well have precipitated one.

While America’s friends in the Middle East, especially Israel, have every reason to feel grateful for the vital assistance they received in intercepting Iran’s missile and drone onslaught, they might also ask what the U.S. can now do differently to deter Iran from further aggression. . . . Tehran will see this weekend’s direct attack on Israel as a victory—their own—for their ability to continue threatening Israel and destabilizing the Middle East with impunity.

Israel, of course, must respond differently. Our target cannot simply be the Iranian proxies that surround our country and that have waged war on us since October 7, but, as the Saudis call it, “the head of the snake.”