Last week, Jews the world over commemorated the destruction of the First Temple, in 586 BCE, and the Second, in 70 CE. The same week, archaeologists published a study explaining how, using new scientific techniques, they determined that an ancient building was burned to the ground during the Babylonian capture of Jerusalem, which resulted in the first of those destructions. The Jerusalem Post reports:

The charred building’s remains, dubbed “Building 100” by the researchers, underwent a variety of analyses to understand how the fire had started and how it had progressed through the structure. While researchers can only make an educated guess that the building was burned during the siege of Jerusalem, the intense damage caused to the massive structure supports their hypothesis. Building 100 was once a large two-story home belonging to a member of Jerusalem’s elite; however, it was lost to time until it was discovered under a parking lot in the southeastern part of the ancient city.

The researchers searched the building for an ignition point, which would allow them to trace the spread of the fire through the building. They did this by measuring the magnetic signatures of pottery shards and broken floor panels. Through this line of study, the researchers uncovered that the fire had started on the top floor of the building, as the bottom floor had rooms that the fire had not reached.

“The widespread presence of charred remains suggests a deliberate destruction by fire, which was ignited at several locations in the top and bottom floors, with heat rising to burn the ceiling of the bottom floor,” the archaeologists explained. “The spread of the fire and the rapid collapse of the building indicate that the destroyers invested great efforts to demolish the building completely and take it out of use.”

The researchers suggest it was highly likely that this building was targeted in an arson as a punitive measure for disobedience, which was common in the 30-month siege of the city.

On Tuesday, representatives of Hamas met with their counterparts from Fatah—the faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) once led by Yasir Arafat that now governs parts of the West Bank—in Beijing to discuss possible reconciliation. While it is unlikely that these talks will yield any more progress than the many previous rounds, they constitute a significant step in China’s increasing attempts to involve itself in the Middle East on the side of Israel’s enemies.

By contrast, writes Tuvia Gering, Taiwan has been quick and consistent in its condemnations of Hamas and Iran and its expressions of sympathy with Israel:

Support from Taipei goes beyond words. Taiwan’s appointee in Tel Aviv and de-facto ambassador, Abby Lee, has been busy aiding hostage families, adopting the most affected kibbutzim in southern Israel, and volunteering with farmers. Taiwan recently pledged more than half a million dollars to Israel for critical initiatives, including medical and communications supplies for local municipalities. This follows earlier aid from Taiwan to an organization helping Israeli soldiers and families immediately after the October 7 attack.

The reasons why are not hard to fathom:

In many ways, Taiwan sees a reflection of itself in Israel—two vibrant democracies facing threats from hostile neighbors. Both nations wield substantial economic and technological prowess, and both heavily depend on U.S. military exports and diplomacy. Taipei also sees Israel as a “role model” for what Taiwan should aspire to be, citing its unwavering determination and capabilities to defend itself.

On a deeper level, Taiwanese leaders seem to view Israel’s war with Hamas and Iran as an extension of a greater struggle between democracy and autocracy.

Gering urges Israel to reciprocate these expressions of friendship and to take into account that “China has been going above and beyond to demonize the Jewish state in international forums.” Above all, he writes, Jerusalem should “take a firmer stance against China’s support for Hamas and Iran-backed terrorism, exposing the hypocrisy and repression that underpin its vision for a new global order.”