Beginning in the late 8th century BCE, the city of Jerusalem underwent more than a century of growth and expansion, during which the local economy became more centered on the capital. Lidar Sapir-Hen, Yuval Gadot, and Israel Finkelstein explain their recent findings on the economic role of livestock in this period, based on the study of artifacts and ancient animal remains from the area around the Western Wall and Tel Moza, a site located just outside Jerusalem:

[O]ur study reveals a class system within Jerusalem. . . . People living in locations close to the Temple Mount show a higher economic standing . . . compared to those in a neighborhood on the southeastern slope of the City of David ridge. . . .

While those residing next to the Temple enjoyed prime cuts of meat and were not engaged in actual herding or agriculture, lower-status groups showed some level of agriculture and [production] of secondary products [such as wool]. The City of David ridge is the only area within the city suitable for conducting small-scale agriculture. That the Temple and palace elite of Jerusalem had specialized herders of sheep and goats [whom they hired to tend flocks outside the city] is well attested in other studies, showing herding of “royal” herds in the Judean Desert.

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.