At various points, the book of Genesis mentions characters who own camels. For instance, Genesis 12:16 mentions Abraham acquiring camels along with other livestock, and Rebecca comes from the land of Aram to Canaan, on her way to marry Abraham’s son Isaac, riding on a camel (24:61). Scholars have for years seen these passages as obvious anachronisms, since evidence suggests that domesticated camels were not introduced to the Land of Israel until around the 10th century BCE, while Abraham, Rebecca, and the other patriarchs would have lived six to ten centuries earlier. But the case is not so clear-cut as these scholars have assumed, writes Megan Sauter:

Abraham’s [and Rebecca’s] place of origin was not Canaan—but Mesopotamia. Thus, to ascertain whether Abraham’s camels are anachronistic, we need to ask: when were camels first domesticated in Mesopotamia? . . . Biblical accounts of the patriarchs and matriarchs have been traditionally dated to ca. 2000–1600 BCE. Camels appear in Mesopotamian sources in the third millennium BCE—before this period. However, the mere presence of camels in sources does not necessarily mean that camels were domesticated. . . .

One of the first pieces of evidence for camel domestication comes from the site of Eshnunna in modern Iraq. A plaque from the mid-third millennium shows a camel being ridden by a human. Another source is a 21st-century-BCE text from Puzrish-Dagan in modern Iraq that may record camel deliveries. Third, an 18th-century text (quoting from an earlier third-millennium text) from Nippur in modern Iraq says, “the milk of the camel is sweet.” . . . Next, an 18th-century-BCE cylinder seal depicts a two-humped camel with riders. Although this seal’s exact place of origin is unknown, it reputedly comes from Syria. . . .

Although domesticated camels may not have been widespread in Mesopotamia in the second millennium, these pieces of evidence show that by [this time] there were at least some domesticated camels. . . . Accordingly, the camels in the stories of Abraham in Genesis are not anachronistic.

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.