A few weeks ago—by coincidence, just after UNESCO passed two resolutions denying a Jewish connection to the Temple Mount—the Israel Antiquities Authority reported having obtained a papyrus from the 7th century BCE that mentioned Jerusalem. Shortly thereafter, other experts weighed in suggesting the writing might be a forgery, skillfully executed on genuinely ancient papyrus. Lawrence Schiffman comments on the general problem of forged documents in the history of ancient Israel:

Recently, . . . questions have been raised about the authenticity of fragments [resembling the Dead Sea Scrolls, which began to surface after 2002. Based on this controversy, one of the scholars skeptical about the Jerusalem papyrus has] argued that just as old pieces of leather writing materials had been used for the creation of forged Dead Sea Scrolls fragments, an ancient piece of papyrus had been used to forge this one. . . .

But what led to the suspicion that the post-2002 Dead Sea Scroll fragments were forged? First, for almost all ancient scrolls of which fragments are preserved, there are several fragments representing what was once a complete manuscript. For many of these suspect manuscripts, only one fragment survives. This anomaly attracted attention and raised the question of authenticity.

Second, most of these questionable texts are biblical, representing a much greater proportion of material than in the scrolls as a whole. This is best explained as a result of buyers’ greater interest in biblical material. . . .

We may never know for sure whether the Jerusalem papyrus is genuine. . . . [But] we need no reassurances that despite all the propaganda to the contrary, it is without question that Jews lived in Jerusalem and the land of Israel for over 1,000 years before the Common Era. We have a rich history and tradition, and there is an extensive archaeological record to allow us to deepen our understanding of the past. Let us not make the mistake of arguing for the validity of our entire history based upon a delivery receipt the authenticity of which cannot be proven.

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.”