At Tel Meggido, one of Israel’s most important archaeological sites, two skeletons were recently discovered in the home of an apparently wealthy family from about 1500 BCE, one of which has a small square-shaped hole in its skull. Although this is not the oldest evidence of an ancient medical procedure known as trephination (or trepanation)—that distinction goes to 40 sets of remains at a 6,500-year-old site in France—it is the oldest ever found in the Middle East. Nathan Steinmeyer writes:

DNA analysis of the bones revealed that the two men were brothers, and both showed signs of genetic defects and systemic infectious diseases. Most surprising, however, were the marks of trephination identified on the skull of the older brother, a rare and dangerous procedure in the ancient world. Only a few dozen cases of trephination have been identified in the ancient Near East, with this example being one of the oldest. According to the excavators, this trephination procedure was likely intended to relieve or treat the patient’s illness.

The brothers’ illnesses were apparently long-lasting, as evidenced by the extensive damage found in their bones in the form of lesions and porosity. Although it is not certain what caused these issues, one explanation is leprosy, which can remain active for decades and is known to spread within families and especially to adolescent males.

It may also be the case that the brothers’ shared genetic defects predisposed them to additional illnesses. . . . Whatever their conditions, the brothers lived long enough for them to leave extensive marks on their physiology. This was at least partially due to their social class, as individuals from lower classes could not afford the care needed to extend life. This is evidenced by the higher percentage of wealthy individuals with signs of long-endured diseases compared to those from lower classes.

In a recent article, the New York Times Magazine asserts that Benjamin Netanyahu “prolonged the war in Gaza to stay in power.” Niranjan Shankar takes the argument apart piece by piece, showing that for all its careful research, it fails to back up its basic claims. For instance: the article implies that Netanyahu torpedoed a three-point cease-fire proposal supported by the Biden administration in the spring of last year:

First of all, it’s crucial to note that Biden’s supposed “three-point plan” announced in May 2024 was originally an Israeli proposal. Of course, there was some back-and-forth and disagreement over how the Biden administration presented this initially, as Biden failed to emphasize that according to the three-point framework, a permanent cease-fire was conditional on Hamas releasing all of the hostages and stepping down. Regardless, the piece fails to mention that it was Hamas in June 2024 that rejected this framework!

It wasn’t until July 2024 that Hamas made its major concession—dropping its demand that Israel commit up front to a full end to the war, as opposed to doing so at a later stage of cease-fire/negotiations. Even then, U.S. negotiators admitted that both sides were still far from agreeing on a deal.

Even when the Times raises more credible criticisms of Israel—like when it brings up the IDF’s strategy of conducting raids rather than holding territory in the first stage of the war—it offers them in what seems like bad faith:

[W]ould the New York Times prefer that Israel instead started with a massive ground campaign with a “clear-hold-build” strategy from the get-go? Of course, if Israel had done this, there would have been endless criticism, especially under the Biden administration. But when Israel instead tried the “raid-and-clear” strategy, it gets blamed for deliberately dragging the war on.