In 2010, Israeli archaeologists uncovered a stone tablet in the oldest part of Jerusalem, which they believe dates to the middle of the 2nd millennium BCE. Gershon Galil, a professor at the University of Haifa, recently announced that he deciphered writing on the tablet in an ancient language related to Hebrew. According to Galil, the inscription contains a curse that was likely the work of “sophisticated magicians” who held “voodoo ceremonies.” Christopher Rollston, a leading authority on ancient Semitic inscriptions, is skeptical:

I am far from convinced that this is an “inscription.” In fact, one could make an entirely plausible case that these are not letters but repetitive decorative motifs and striations.

Here is Galil’s translation of it: “Cursed, cursed, you will surely die; Cursed, cursed, you will surely die; Governor of the City, you will surely die; Cursed, you will surely die; Cursed, you will surely die; Cursed, you will surely die.”

Although it is perhaps possible that there is some sort of “inscription” here, these readings and translation of Galil’s are not at all convincing. . . . But Galil’s assertion about this putative inscription’s importance pales in comparison with some of the rest of his claims.

According to Galil, “the new inscription proves that Jerusalem was not only a fortified city, but also a very important cultural and cultic center.” I too believe that Jerusalem was an important center at this time, and I believe that Jerusalem was fortified during the 2nd millennium BCE (the period from which this “inscription” putatively hails). However, according to Galil’s own readings, this inscription does not mention any city or its fortifications! So . . . even if someone were to embrace Galil’s readings, the “inscription” cannot carry the freight with which he is saddling it.

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.