In 2009, archaeologists excavating the ancient Galilean city of Migdal (Aramaic Magdala) discovered the remains of a synagogue built and used prior to the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE. Although many ancient synagogues have been discovered in the region, all but a few were built in the 2nd century CE or later, making this one a rare and exciting find. Most fascinating was the engraved stone block in its center, which has sparked many interpretations, including that it was a table for reading the Torah, a place for burning incense, an elaborate symbolic representation of the Temple in its entirety, and even a clue to understanding the origins of Christian theology. David Gurevich, while appreciating the object’s significance, cautions against overreading its symbolism and ramifications:

The Magdala Stone has a rectangular form (60×50×40 cm). Its base consists of four legs. Five of its sides are decorated with reliefs. On the stone’s upper face, there is a rosette pattern, two palm trees, and various plant elements. Another two rosettes with arches are found on a narrow (back?) face. The longer sides depict what may be seen as arched gateways, and a strange artifact that [resembles] a lamp.

The most interesting side of the stone has an extraordinary relief of a menorah flanked by two amphorae [jugs] and two columns. It is a unique finding because the Magdala Stone provides the earliest visual representation of the menorah in synagogue art. Due to the dating, it is possible that the artist had seen the original candelabrum of the Temple with his own eyes. Columns found in later Jewish art . . . are usually explained by scholars as an architectural façade that symbolized the entrance to the Temple. Hence, the appearance of the menorah combined with the façade could not be random. . . .

The menorah was definitely important as a symbol in the Jewish art [of the time] and it is meant to invoke the Temple; but the menorah was also a symbol of Judaism and Jews in the ancient world. It is [entirely] reasonable to find a menorah decorating a place where a Jewish community gathers to study Scripture. This does not necessitate that every single ornament on the stone ought to be linked to Jerusalem’s Temple.

As for the more elaborate interpretations, Gurevich cites the historian Steven Fine, who has compared them to something that might be found in the novels of Dan Brown.

Over the weekend, Elliot Kaufman of the Wall Street Journal reported about a formal letter, signed by five prominent sheikhs from the Judean city of Hebron and addressed to the Israeli economy minister Nir Barkat. The letter proposed that Hebron, one of the West Bank’s largest municipalities, “break out of the Palestinian Authority (PA), establish an emirate of its own, and join the Abraham Accords.” Kaufman spoke with some of the sheikhs, who emphasized their resentment at the PA’s corruption and fecklessness, and their desire for peace.

Responding to these unusual events, Seth Mandel looks back to what he describes as his favorite “‘what if’ moment in the Arab-Israeli conflict,” involving

a plan for the West Bank drawn up in the late 1980s by the former Israeli foreign minister Moshe Arens. The point of the plan was to prioritize local Arab Palestinian leadership instead of facilitating the PLO’s top-down governing approach, which was corrupt and authoritarian from the start.

Mandel, however, is somewhat skeptical about whether such a plan can work in 2025:

Yet, . . . while it is almost surely a better idea than anything the PA has or will come up with, the primary obstacle is not the quality of the plan but its feasibility under current conditions. The Arens plan was a “what if” moment because there was no clear-cut governing structure in the West Bank and the PLO, then led by Yasir Arafat, was trying to direct the Palestinian side of the peace process from abroad (Lebanon, then Tunisia). In fact, Arens’s idea was to hold local elections among the Palestinians in order to build a certain amount of democratic legitimacy into the foundation of the Arab side of the conflict.

Whatever becomes of the Hebron proposal, there is an important lesson for Gaza from the ignored Arens plan: it was a mistake, as one sheikh told Kaufman, to bring in Palestinian leaders who had spent decades in Tunisia and Lebanon to rule the West Bank after Oslo. Likewise, Gaza will do best if led by the people there on the ground, not new leaders imported from the West Bank, Qatar, or anywhere else.