On a hike not far from the Gaza border, the six-year-old Imri Elya discovered a rare clay seal showing a victorious warrior and his captive. Amanda Borschel-Dan describes the item:

The visceral scene—impressed upon a clay seal by an artisan whose fingerprints are still visible on [its] back—was found by Elya while walking on Tel Jemmah near the Gaza border. . . . Elya received a certificate of good citizenship for turning the artifact over to the Israeli Antiquities Authority (IAA).

The 1.1-inch square clay impression was likely a souvenir of victory, similar to an honor badge or medal, the IAA archaeologist Saar Ganor [said]. Since the impression was created from a mold, he said it’s possible there were many created and distributed. They may have been used as decorations, perhaps pressed inside other items—such as belts or furniture—that showcased the owners’ total victories.

Ganor believes the scene is of two Canaanites. The naked, rail-thin prisoner’s hands are so violently tied behind him that his back is ramrod straight. He is held captive by a clothed, somewhat plumper warden, with trimmed curly hair and a beard. . . . Through comparing and contrasting their find with others from the ancient world, the IAA researchers date the artifact to the late Bronze Age (between the 12th and 15th centuries BCE).

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.