Yesterday, Eilat Mazar, a leading Israeli archaeologist who pioneered the excavation of ancient Jerusalem, died at the age of sixty-four. The granddaughter of Benjamin Mazar—who along with the soldier-scholar Yigael Yadin helped to establish the field of Israeli archaeology—she has done perhaps more than anyone to show how ancient structures and artifacts fit into the biblical narrative. Mazar was most recently engaged in the excavation of a royal complex south of the Temple Mount where, in 2018, she identified an ancient clay seal that may have belonged to the prophet Isaiah. But her most famous, and perhaps most controversial, finding was the ruins of building she believed was likely King David’s palace. She described how she came to this discovery in a 2006 essay:

There can be little doubt that King David had a palace. The Bible tells us that Hiram of Tyre (who would later help King Solomon build the Temple) constructed the palace for David: “King Hiram of Tyre sent envoys to David, with cedar logs, carpenters and stonemasons; and they built a palace for David” (2Samuel 5:11). Nine years ago [i.e., in 1997], I wrote an article . . . suggesting [that] the remains of King David’s palace might lie . . . in the northern part of the most ancient area of Jerusalem, known as the City of David.

I was struck by this idea while engaged in other research on the archaeology of Jerusalem. I had noticed the findings of the well-known British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon, who dug here in the 1960s. In [what she termed] Area H, at the northern end of the City of David, Kenyon discovered a section of a massive public structure that she considered to be part of a new casemate wall built by King Solomon. She dated the wall, on the basis of the pottery associated with it, to the 10th century BCE, the time of King David and King Solomon, according to the Bible. . . . Perhaps this casemate wall, I speculated, was part of David’s palace.

Aside from the archeological discoveries there, the site fit quite well with . . . 2Samuel 5:17, which describes David in the City of David going down, or descending from his residence to the citadel or fortress (m’tsudah). The citadel or fortress to which he descended was of course the Jebusite stronghold, the “Fortress of Zion” that he had conquered a short time earlier.

It is clear from the topography of the City of David that David could have gone down to the citadel only from the north, as the city is surrounded by deep valleys on every other side. It also makes sense that the Jebusite stronghold would have been located at the high point in the City of David, that is, in its northernmost section. . . . If this was in fact the case, one can infer that after conquering the city, David’s palace was constructed north of this citadel (David went down to the fortress) and outside the northern fortifications of the city.

With this hypothesis in mind, Mazar set out to excavate the area, and found remains that, as she put it, “square perfectly with the biblical description” of David’s palace.

Earlier this month, an operative working for, or in conjunction with, Hizballah snuck across the Israel-Lebanese border and planted a sophisticated explosive near the town of Megiddo, which killed a civilian when detonated. On Thursday, another Iranian proxy group launched a drone at a U.S. military base in Syria, killing a contractor and wounding five American soldiers. The former attack appears to be an attempt to change what Israeli officials and analysts call the “rules of the game”: the mutually understood redlines that keep the Jewish state and Hizballah from going to war. Nadav Pollak explains how he believes Jerusalem should respond:

Israel cannot stop at pointing fingers and issuing harsh statements. The Megiddo attack might have caused much more damage given the additional explosives and other weapons the terrorist was carrying; even the lone device detonated at Megiddo could have easily been used to destroy a larger target such as a bus. Moreover, Hizballah’s apparent effort to test (or shift) Jerusalem’s redlines on a dangerous frontier needs to be answered. If [the terrorist group’s leader Hassan] Nasrallah has misjudged Israel, then it is incumbent on Jerusalem to make this clear.

Unfortunately, the days of keeping the north quiet at any cost have passed, especially if Hizballah no longer believes Israel is willing to respond forcefully. The last time the organization perceived Israel to be weak was in 2006, and its resultant cross-border operations (e.g., kidnapping Israeli soldiers) led to a war that proved to be devastating, mostly to Lebanon. If Hizballah tries to challenge Israel again, Israel should be ready to take strong action such as targeting the group’s commanders and headquarters in Lebanon—even if this runs the risk of intense fire exchanges or war.

Relevant preparations for this option should include increased monitoring of Hizballah officials—overtly and covertly—and perhaps even the transfer of some military units to the north. Hizballah needs to know that Israel is no longer shying away from conflict, since this may be the only way of forcing the group to return to the old, accepted rules of the game and step down from the precipice of a war that it does not appear to want.