The South American nation of Suriname was once home to a thriving community of Sephardi Jews, who had come there and to other Caribbean lands seeking religious freedom and economic opportunity. They added to their ranks converts to Judaism of African origin. The remains of one town reveal much about their lives and traditions. Laura Arnold Leibman writes:

Deep in the Surinamese jungle lies the ruins of what was once the prospering plantation town of Jodensavanne—Jew’s Savanne. Just past the bricks that made up Brakhah ve-Shalom (“Blessings and Peace”) synagogue, are two early cemeteries—one Jewish, one African. Deeper into the forest lies a third cemetery, the Cassipora Jewish cemetery. All three cemeteries hark back to the sepulchral traditions of ancestral homelands even as they have adapted to changes in what it meant to be Jewish. As such, they are a good example of both continuity and change within American religion.

Whereas the Creole cemetery employs what some have argued are African symbols, the Jewish cemetery of nearby Cassipora Creek features pyramid-shaped tombstones that echo those found in the Sephardic cemeteries of London, Amsterdam, Hamburg, as well as medieval Spain. Indeed, though they are separated by a jungle and ocean from their European analogues, Jodensavanne and Cassipora’s Jewish cemeteries share many of their key features with Europe’s Western Sephardic cemeteries. Both Cassipora and Jodensavanne’s Jewish cemeteries, for example, feature the striking symbol of the Hand of God cutting down the tree of life. This symbol can also be found not only in the Western Sephardic cemeteries of London, Amsterdam, and Hamburg, but also in those in Paramaribo, Jamaica, Barbados, and Curaçao.

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.