Despite its name, the Tower of David—the citadel locater near the Jaffa Gate of Jerusalem’s Old City—has little connection to King David. Much of it was constructed during the Hasmonean and Herodian periods (i.e., the 1st and 2nd centuries BCE), although the oldest structures date as far back the 8th century BCE. Since the 1980s, it has also been home to a museum that is now undergoing renovations, meant to reflect the newest advances in conservation. Ruth Marks Eglash writes:

As with any construction project inside Jerusalem’s ancient walls, it is the secrets hidden below the ground, beneath more recent layers, that often present the most unpleasant surprises. The biggest surprise for archaeologists took place at the location of what will soon be a sparkling new entrance pavilion to the museum. . . . As machines began removing dirt from the area, which originally served as a Crusader moat, they realized that beneath the massive Jerusalem stones that form the walls of the Old City there were no solid foundations.

While this discovery temporarily halted the construction, with engineers brought in to secure the stone, the break gave archaeologists a chance to re-explore 500-year-old Ottoman architecture and building methods.

Although the site was excavated by British archaeologists nearly 100 years ago, . . . they relied on classic archaeological methods to date the structure. With updated technology, including the use of carbon dating . . . archaeologists will be able to create a more accurate timeline for Jerusalem.

With the IDF engaged in ground maneuvers in both northern and southern Gaza, and a plan about to go into effect next week that would separate more than 100,000 civilians from Hamas’s control, an end to the war may at last be in sight. Yet there seems to be no agreement within Israel, or without, about what should become of the territory. Efraim Inbar assesses the various proposals, from Donald Trump’s plan to remove the population entirely, to the Israeli far-right’s desire to settle the Strip with Jews, to the internationally supported proposal to place Gaza under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA)—and exposes the fatal flaws of each. He therefore tries to reframe the problem:

[M]any Arab states have failed to establish a monopoly on the use of force within their borders. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Sudan all suffer from civil wars or armed militias that do not obey the central government.

Perhaps Israel needs to get used to the idea that in the absence of an entity willing to take Gaza under its wing, chaos will prevail there. This is less terrible than people may think. Chaos would allow Israel to establish buffer zones along the Gaza border without interference. Any entity controlling Gaza would oppose such measures and would resist necessary Israeli measures to reduce terrorism. Chaos may also encourage emigration.

Israel is doomed to live with bad neighbors for the foreseeable future. There is no way to ensure zero terrorism. Israel should avoid adopting a policy of containment and should constantly “mow the grass” to minimize the chances of a major threat emerging across the border. Periodic conflicts may be necessary. If the Jews want a state in their homeland, they need to internalize that Israel will have to live by the sword for many more years.