It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Tuesday, July 30, 2024
Wolf 2 — von der Leyen 0:
EU court insists on being careful with wolf hunting
Ursula von der Leyen’s furry nemesis strikes back.
The EU's top court in Luxembourg ruled on Monday that as wolves are a protected species, they "cannot be designated as a huntable species."
Another day, another court ruling that puts a thorn in Ursula von der Leyen’s side.
The EU’s top court in Luxembourg ruled on Monday that as wolves are a protected species, they “cannot be designated as a huntable species.“ The judges said a regional law in Castile and León in northwestern Spain had violated EU environmental law because it allowed wolves to be hunted even though the species isn’t doing well in Spain
This is the second ruling in a month in which the Court of Justice of the European Union said member countries should be very careful when relaxing hunting rules for wolves and shouldn’t come at the expense of the long-term conservation of the large carnivore.
Commission President Ursula von der Leyen begs to differ and argues EU law against wolf hunting needs to become more flexible because while “the comeback of wolves is good news for biodiversity in Europe … the concentration of wolf packs in some European regions has become a real danger especially for livestock.”
In December, von der Leyen put forward a proposal to downgrade the protection status of her furry nemesis from “strictly protected” to “protected” which would make it easier for national authorities to grant killing orders against animals threatening farmers’ livestock — or ponies.
Some speculate that von der Leyen’s interest in the legislative treatment of wolves may have something to do with the time when a wolf killed her beloved poney Dolly and was never apprehended by German authorities. Others point to the fact that making wolves easier to cull has been a long-standing demand of von der Leyen’s political family, the center-right European People’s Party.
The Commission President has over the past months been personally keeping track of the talks on the file, but it’s still unclear whether she can get a majority of EU governments onboard with her idea. That’s because EU environment ministers are pushing back while agriculture ministers seem broadly in favor of the proposal.
EU countries are set to come to a decision by the end of the year. But getting her proposal through may become much more difficult for von der Leyen if court rulings insisting on the wolf’s strict protection keep piling up.
The EU’s top court reiterated Monday that the large carnivore can be managed but cannot be hunted, even in a specific region, if it is in an unfavorable conservation status nationwide. “The purpose of those measures must be to maintain or restore the species concerned at a favourable conservation status,” the judges said. “Thus, where those measures include hunting rules, they are intended to restrict hunting, not to extend it,” they added and warned that “if it proves necessary, hunting may, therefore, even be prohibited.”
Christian Pichler, a conservationist with WWF Austria, said that “politicians must finally move away from their populist bogus solutions and provide comprehensive support for domestic farmers in protecting livestock.”
This article has been updated.
Joe Biden has expelled nearly 7 million illegal immigrants
Over the weekend, Jack Herrera had a piece in Politico that provides an interesting perspective on the Biden administration's immigration policy. It's true that illegal border crossings soared after Biden took office, but expulsions soared too, starting from his first day:
Most Americans don’t understand how many people the Biden-Harris administration has removed from the country.... In the spring of 2021, deep in the depths of the Covid-19 pandemic, I was in a camp in Tijuana, where some migrants were so hopeful the new president would let them in that they flew “BIDEN FOR PRESIDENT” flags outside their tents. But most of them who crossed got a slap from reality: They were quickly frog-marched by U.S. Border Patrol back through the deportation doorway, back to the squalid camps in cartel turf. Others got rapidly loaded onto ICE planes and flown back to Haiti, Guatemala, El Salvador, wherever. As the number of people crossing the border grew during Biden’s first two years in office, these expulsions reached a scorching pace. ICE charter flights bounced around the globe like Taylor Swift’s jet.
Naturally you want to see this in chart form. I'm here to help:
During Biden's term in office, he will have expelled, detained, or deported 6.9 million illegal immigrants. That's 73% more than Donald Trump.
This is why, despite the surge in migrants, the total population of illegal immigrants in the US has probably increased less than most people think. Out of roughly 11 million migrants (border crossers plus asylum seekers), around 7 million of them were expelled. At the same time, about 2 million illegal immigrants who are already in the country return to their homes every year. That gets us to 9 million. So net growth has probably been on the order of 2 million or so, an increase of 18%.
That's just a guess, and it might be off on either side. Still, you might wonder why, if this is the case, Biden hasn't bragged more about it. I imagine there are two reasons. First, it's still growth of 2 million illegal immigrants compared to roughly zero during the Trump administration. Second, the Democratic base doesn't want to hear that Biden has been pretty strict about expelling illegal immigrants. It's a no-win problem
A little learning is a dangerous thing. —Alexander Pope
Ancient Sites Contaminated by Microplastics, Study Finds
The highest level of microplastic contamination found in the study was 20,588 microplastic particles per kilogram of sediment, discovered in an archived sample from the lowest depth (about 7.35 meters) at one of the archaeological sites. This surprising concentration of microplastics deep within ancient layers highlights the extent of modern pollution's reach into our historical record.
A recent study in York, UK, has revealed a surprising discovery: microplastics (MPs) are contaminating both contemporary and archived archaeological sediment samples, some dating back to the late 1980s. Researchers found various types of MP polymers, including those used in food packaging and automotive parts, in significant quantities within these samples.
This unexpected presence of tiny plastic particles in historical dirt layers is raising concerns among archaeologists and heritage managers. The contamination could potentially compromise the long-term preservation of archaeological deposits and impact future research capabilities. Challenging Current Preservation Practices
The discovery of MPs in archaeological sediments is forcing experts to reconsider current preservation strategies. In the UK, there’s a preference for preserving heritage assets in situ – leaving them undisturbed in the ground for future generations to study. However, the presence of microplastics may be putting this approach at risk.
Microplastics can persist in soil for long periods, potentially altering soil structure and affecting microbial communities. This contamination could harm delicate organic materials and interfere with dating techniques or chemical analyses. As a result, the argument for keeping archaeological deposits untouched is being called into question. Balancing Preservation and Progress
This new plastic threat creates a complex challenge for heritage professionals and urban planners. While preserving archaeological sites in place has allowed for sustainable development alongside heritage conservation, the risk of microplastic contamination introduces new concerns.
Moving forward, decision-makers will need to weigh the potential risks of MP contamination against the benefits of in situ preservation. This may lead to changes in how we approach site preservation and urban development, potentially favoring more extensive excavation and documentation before development occurs.
As we grapple with this unexpected intersection of modern pollution and ancient history, finding the right balance between preserving our past and building our future has become more crucial – and more complicated – than ever.
Trump-Allied Policy Writers Back Deregulation of PFAS
Experts warn that allies of the Republican nominee aim to undermine the EPA’s ability to regulate forever chemicals.
A second Trump administration would undermine the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to protect the public from toxic “forever chemicals,” The Guardianreported Sunday, citing experts inside and outside the agency.
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a class of about 16,000 synthetic compounds that break down only very slowly, have been linked to a wide array of serious medical conditions including cancer. The EPA under the Biden administration has instituted limits on PFAS levels in drinking water and other PFAS regulations that industry groups oppose.
Experts warn that allies of Republican nominee Donald Trump aim not just to roll back Biden-era regulations but fundamentally reshape the agency.
“Basically the entire infrastructure of how [the] EPA considers science and develops rules is very much under attack,” Erik Olson, legislative director at the Natural Resource Defense Council, told The Guardian.
An unnamed EPA employee told the newspaper that a second Trump administration would seek to disempower agency experts and let political appointees make key regulatory decisions.
“They want a small group of 20 people making the rules, and the rest of the agency can go to hell as far as they care,” said the EPA employee, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
Project 2025, a roadmap for Republican governance produced by the right-wing Heritage Foundation, proposes deregulation of PFAS, narrowing the definition of the class of toxic compounds, and elimination of the EPA office that assesses chemicals’ toxicity.
Project 2025, to the extent that it’s known about, has proven unpopular with the American public, and Trump has tried to distance himself from the plan, but has close links to its authors, at least 140 of whom worked in the former president’s administration.
Project 2025’s proposals on forever chemicals are aligned with the aims of the American Chemistry Council, the fourth largest lobbying group in the country. During his first term, Trump appointed ACC leaders to key positions in the EPA, and critics of the former president argue that his second administration would be even more unabashedly pro-industry.
“The Trump administration learned some lessons and would be much more surgical and effective at affixation next time,” the NRDC’s Olson said.
The unnamed EPA employee said a Trump victory might even mean the abolishment of the EPA’s entire Office of Research and Development.
ACC members 3M and DuPont developed PFAS in the mid-20th century and used them in a wide range of products, even with knowledge of their toxicity and the way that they accumulate in the human body, according to a series of exposés in recent years, notably by the journalist Sharon Lerner in her work at ProPublica and The Intercept. A recent article of Lerner’s in The New Yorker showed that 3M long concealed the dangers of PFAS.
'Forever Chemicals' Contamination To Be Tested Near US Army Sites
Published Jul 29, 2024 NEWSWEEK By Matthew Robinson US News Editor
Levels of water contamination through harmful "forever chemicals" will be tested near U.S. Army sites across the country in a new joint project.
The scheme, announced on Friday by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army, will sample and test water from private drinking water wells for the presence of per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
PFAS are long-lasting chemicals used to make products resistant to heat, oil, stains, grease and water. This means they are present in numerous household items, including nonstick cooking tools, toilet paper, food packaging, cosmetics and dental floss.
If the testing indicates the presence of PFAS in ground or drinking water above the maximum contaminant levels set out by the EPA, the Army will work with state regulators and the agency to mitigate exposure for the public and implement remedial measures.
The project has initially identified a priority list of nine Army installations out of 235 locations where the testing will take place. These include; Fort Novosel in Alabama; Fort Hunter Liggett – Parks Reserve Forces Training Area in California; Fort Stewart in Georgia; Fort Stewart – Hunter Army Airfield in Georgia; Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky; Fort Campbell in Kentucky and Tennessee; Fort Liberty in North Carolina; Fort Sill in Oklahoma; and McAlester Army Ammunition Plant in Oklahoma.
Once the initial testing at these nine locations is completed, the project will evaluate additional installations to determine whether the scheme should be expanded.
A scientist tests water for PFAS at the EPA's Center For Environmental Solutions and Emergency Response in Cincinnati in 2023. PFAS levels in water from private drinking water wells near a number of U.S. Army... More Joshua A. Bickel/AP
Commenting on the scheme, David M. Uhlmann, an assistant administrator at the EPA, said in a statement: "PFAS pose significant risks to drinking water supplies and public health, which is why the EPA and the Army are testing water from wells in communities near Army installations to determine if these dangerous forever chemicals are polluting drinking water.
"Members of the military, their families, and surrounding communities deserve access to clean, safe drinking water. EPA welcomes the opportunity to share our expertise and work with the Army on this important project, which will help advance EPA's PFAS National Enforcement and Compliance Initiative."
Rachel Jacobson, assistant secretary of the Army for installations, energy and environment, added: "For the nine installations that are part of our joint pilot program with EPA, the Army has already begun more in-depth investigations. The Army welcomes EPA's collaboration as it continues to evaluate whether PFAS from past Army activities has impacted our neighboring communities and if so, takes steps to mitigate those impacts."
The EPA noted that PFAS have been found in "groundwater and soil at many federal facilities, including at military sites." It added: "The Army has used PFAS in various operations, including in foam to extinguish fires."
The U.S. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry has identified these "forever chemicals" as potential causes of health problems like increased cholesterol and blood pressure, diminished immune function, reproductive problems and a heightened risk of certain cancers.
Maaike van Gerwen, director of research for the department of otolaryngology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, told Newsweek previously: "Because of the ubiquitous presence of PFAS in our environment, including water, soil and food, almost the entire population is exposed on a daily basis and it is thus difficult to completely avoid exposure."
She added: "PFAS are chemicals that have been produced since the 1940s and are used in a variety of industry and consumer products, including nonstick cookware, stain-resistant fabric and firefighting foam.
"In the early 2000s, major American chemical companies voluntarily agreed to eliminate the production of PFOA- and PFOA-related chemicals... This does not mean that the production of PFAS declined. On the contrary, multiple new PFAS chemicals were developed and are still being manufactured."
European governments have reacted to a growing wave of direct-action protests by climate activists with heavy-handed policing, effectively criminalizing such campaigns, seeking to dissolve groups, and imposing restrictions on basic rights, Human Rights Watch charged in a July 22 statement. “This creates serious risks to environmental activism and civil society as a whole and undercuts vital efforts to address the climate crisis,” the group found.
In Germany, there has been a particularly harsh response to climate activism. A special target has been the group Last Generation, whose tactics have included such actions as spraying paint on private jets. Five Last Generation activists were indicted in May for forming a “criminal organization.” A ruling that upholds this designation “could pave the way for prosecuting anyone who participates in or supports the group, whether administratively or financially, and would mean criminal sanctions well beyond anything the activists should reasonably and foreseeably expect to face.”
On the same day HRW issued its statement, a record-breaking sentence was handed down in the United Kingdom, with five Just Stop Oil activists given multi-year prison terms. The case concerned a protest action that disrupted the M25 motorway in London for more than four days in November 2022. The defendants were accused for participating in a Zoom call in which the action was discussed, rather than in the action itself. Roger Hallam, 58, was given a five-year term, while four others received four years, after being found guilty of “conspiracy to cause a public nuisance.” An open letter signed by more than 1,200 UK celebrities and academics described the terms handed to the “Whole Truth Five” as “one of the greatest injustices in a British court in modern history.” (Jurist, BBC News, The Guardian)
Canadian Coast Guard Penalties Highlight Environmental Accountability for Boat Owners
Since 2016, the Canadian Coast Guard has tackled over 2,000 wrecked, abandoned, or hazardous vessels across Canada's waters, significantly reducing environmental risks and enhancing marine safety under the Oceans Protection Plan. (Credit: Unsplash+)
Wrecked, abandoned, or hazardous boats pose significant threats to the environment, local communities, and economies. Through the Oceans Protection Plan, the Government of Canada continues to address problem vessels and ensure owner accountability. Vessel owners are responsible for maintaining their boats and properly disposing of them when no longer seaworthy. Enforcement of the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act
Recently, the Canadian Coast Guard exercised its authority under the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act, imposing a $12,000 administrative monetary penalty on the owner of a 6.4-meter pleasure craft in the Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu area. The vessel posed hazards to the marine environment and public safety due to pollution risks, debris not intended for submersion, potential injury to boaters, risk of drifting in a busy river, and shoreline erosion.
Compliance and Penalty
The fine followed the owner’s failure to comply with the Canadian Coast Guard’s directives to remove the vessel and prevent pollution by April 4, 2024. Due to the dangers presented, the vessel was removed from the marine environment by the Canadian Coast Guard.
The Canadian Coast Guard collaborates with vessel owners to resolve issues, resorting to penalties only after all other avenues are exhausted. The owner was given 30 days to pay the fine or request a review hearing with the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada. Penalties issued under the Wrecked, Abandoned or Hazardous Vessels Act are publicly reported on the Canadian Coast Guard’s website. Public Assistance in Reporting Vessels
The Canadian Coast Guard urges citizens to report problematic vessels, including those that are wrecked, abandoned, or pose hazards. To manage this issue, the Coast Guard maintains a nationwide database of troublesome vessels, prioritizing their removal based on severity.
This national inventory has logged over 2,000 reported vessels so far, aiding in tracking and addressing the problem efficiently. Since 2016, the Canadian government’s Oceans Protection Plan has taken significant action, funding more than 580 projects dedicated to removing and disposing of problematic vessels. Additionally, the plan has established legal measures, making it unlawful to abandon vessels in Canadian waters.
PEW POLL
War in Ukraine: Wide Partisan Differences on U.S. Responsibility and Support
Majorities in both parties approve of keeping strict economic sanctions on Russia
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken walks down a street in Kyiv during an announced visit to meet with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on May 14, 2024. (Brendan Smialowski/Pool/AFP via Getty Images)
REPORT
|
How we did this
With the conflict in Ukraine now in its third year, Republicans and Democrats continue to differ over U.S. policy toward the war-torn country.
A 62% majority of Republicans say the United States does not have a responsibility to help Ukraine defend itself from Russia’s invasion.
Americans overall are evenly divided on whether the U.S. has a responsibility to help Ukraine (48% say it does, 49% say it does not).
About two-thirds of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents (63%) say the U.S. has this responsibility.
Only about a third of Republicans and Republican leaners (36%) say the same.
Americans remain divided on levels of U.S. aid to Ukraine. Today, 29% of Americans say the U.S. is providing too much support to Ukraine, and a similar share say it’s providing about the right amount (26%). About two-in-ten (19%) say the U.S. is not providing enough support, while a quarter are not sure.
Democrats largely say the U.S. is providing either the right amount of aid (36%) or not enough assistance (27%). Just 13% say the U.S. is sending too much aid to Ukraine.
Nearly half of Republicans (47%) say the U.S. is providing too much aid to Ukraine, more than three times the share of Democrats who say this. Only 18% say current aid levels are about right, while just 12% say the U.S. is providing too little aid.
The new Pew Research Center survey of 9,424 U.S. adults was conducted July 1-7, 2024 – before President Joe Biden announced he was dropping his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.
How much of a threat does the war in Ukraine pose to U.S. interests?
The share of Americans saying Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a threat to U.S. interests has declined significantly since 2022. Today, about a third of the public (34%) says Russia’s invasion of Ukraine poses a “major threat” to U.S. interests. Shortly after Russia invaded Ukraine, half said it was a major threat.
There is a wide and growing gap between Republicans and Democrats over whether the war in Ukraine is a major threat to U.S. interests.
Both Democrats and Republicans are less likely to say the conflict is a major threat to the U.S. than they were in its early days. But that decline is far sharper among Republicans.
45% of Democrats now say Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a major threat, 5 percentage points lower than in March of 2022 but 7 points higher than a year ago.
26% of Republicans say the war is a major threat to the U.S. This share has been essentially flat since early 2023 and remains well below the 51% of Republicans who said this early in the war.
Views of U.S. policies toward Ukraine: Sanctions, military aid, strikes on targets in Russia
A greater share of Americans approve of keeping strict economic sanctions on Russia (69%) than approve of continuing to send military equipment to Ukraine (54%) or allowing Ukraine to use U.S. weapons to strike targets inside Russia (54%).
Majorities of both Republicans (66%) and Democrats (77%) approve of keeping strict economic sanctions on Russia.
Much smaller shares of Republicans approve of continuing to provide military equipment and weaponry to Ukraine (42%) or allowing Ukraine to use U.S.-made weapons inside Russia’s borders (46%).
Most Democrats approve of continuing to send military aid to Ukraine (71%) and allowing Ukraine to use American-made weapons to strike targets in Russia (65%).
Views of U.S. aid to Ukraine
Americans continue to be divided over the amount of aid the U.S. is providing to support Ukraine against Russia.
Over the past year and a half, the leading view among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents has been that the U.S. is providing too much support to Ukraine (47% say this currently).
This balance of opinion among Republicans has not changed much over this period, and it represents a reversal from early in the conflict when fewer than a quarter of Republicans said the U.S. was providing too much aid.
Most Democrats and Democratic leaners have consistently said the U.S. is providing either too little or about the right amount of aid since the war began.
The share of Democrats who said the U.S. was sending too little aid increased in April, before a new $95 billion aid bill passed Congress. It has now returned to about where it was in late 2023. Only 13% of Democrats say the U.S. is providing too much aid to Ukraine.
Assessments of Ukraine’s military efforts and concerns about the war
Americans have mixed views of Ukraine’s military effort. Only 11% say Ukraine’s efforts to defend itself are going extremely or very well. More than twice as many (26%) say they are going not too well or not at all well. About four-in-ten (42%) say they’re going somewhat well.
Republicans are slightly more pessimistic about Ukraine’s defense than Democrats. About a third of Republicans (32%) say Ukraine’s military efforts are not going well, compared with 21% of Democrats.
Nearly half of Democrats (47%) say Ukraine’s defense is going somewhat well. About four-in-ten Republicans (39%) say the same.
Concerns over the war in Ukraine
Americans express a range of concerns arising from the Russia-Ukraine war:
51% say they are extremely or very concerned that the war will continue for many years.
A nearly identical share (50%) are extremely or very concerned that Russia will invade other countries in the region.
Somewhat smaller shares are at least very concerned about Ukraine being defeated by Russia (43% are extremely or very concerned) and U.S. and NATO support for Ukraine leading to a war with Russia (41%).
Democrats are significantly more likely than Republicans to say they are highly concerned about Russia invading other countries in Europe and that Ukraine will lose and be taken over.
Six-in-ten Democrats say they are extremely or very concerned that Russia will invade other countries in the region. Roughly four-in-ten Republicans (42%) are as concerned about this.
A majority of Democrats (56%) say they are extremely or very concerned about Ukraine being defeated and taken over by Russia, compared with 33% of Republicans. Democrats’ concerns about Ukraine losing have increased modestly since 2022.
Republicans (45%) express somewhat higher levels of concern than Democrats (38%) that U.S. and NATO support for Ukraine will lead to a direct war between the U.S. and Russia. Concern among members of both political coalitions is somewhat higher than it was two years ago.
Archaeologists discover ancient Jerusalem moat, solving 150-year-old mystery
A different piece of the ancient moat was discovered in the 1960s but mistaken as a natural valley.
Yiftah Shalev, of the Israel Antiquities Authority, overlooks a section of the excavated moat fortification of Jerusalem. (Photo by Eric Marmur, City of David) July 25, 2024 By Michele Chabin
JERUSALEM (RNS) — Archaeologists from Tel Aviv University and the Israel Antiquities Authority have discovered a remnant of a massive ancient moat in Jerusalem that fortified the city during the time of the First Jewish Temple and the Kingdom of Judah — the ninth century BCE.
“This is an extremely important discovery,” Yosef Garfinkel, a professor at the Institute of Archaeology at the Hebrew University who was not involved in the excavation, told Religion News Service. “It shows that by the ninth century BCE, Jerusalem was an important city.”
Although no one knows exactly when or why the moat was created, the archaeologists say it could have been quarried as far back as 3,800 years ago. At the time, the moat physically separated the southern residential part of the city (the City of David) from the upper city — the Temple Mount area — where the palace and First Temple stood.
Open questions and excavations at the City of David archaeological site have persisted for 150 years, so any new discovery must be cross-referenced with earlier finds. In this case, the team reexamined 70-year-old excavation reports written by the renowned British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon, who worked on a nearby site in the 1960s.
“It became clear to us that Kenyon noticed that the natural rock slopes towards the north, in a place where it should naturally have risen,” said Yuval Gadot, excavation co-director and head of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University. While Kenyon believed it to be a natural valley, she had discovered a different remnant of the moat, carved to the west.
Professor Yuval Gadot of Tel Aviv University stands next to the northern side of the moat that protected Jerusalem. Alongside him are carved bedrock channels. (Photo by Eric Marmur, City of David)
Taken together, the two parts of the moat extend at least 70 meters (230 feet) from west to east. The trench is at least 30 feet deep. The dig site is altogether 3,500 square feet and had previously been used as a parking lot for visitors to the Western Wall.
“Cut into the hill’s natural bedrock, the ditch would have required the quarrying of nearly half a million cubic feet of stone, making it a truly monumental achievement,” an article on the website of the Biblical Archaeology Society notes. “This barrier appears to have remained in place until the late second century BCE, when it was finally filled in and covered over to allow for new construction.”
Gadot said the “dramatic discovery” has reenergized the discussion over the meaning of the topological terms used in the Hebrew Bible, such as Ophel, which is believed to be an elevated area, and the Millo, which various scholars have interpreted to mean a stepped stone structure, a tower, a landfill or an embankment.
In the first Book of Kings (11:27), Solomon built the Millo and repaired the breaches of the City of David.
The First Jewish Temple was built by King Solomon in 1000 BC, after his father, King David, conquered Jerusalem. Led by King Nebuchadnezzar, Babylonians breached the Temple’s walls and destroyed it in 586 BCE. The Jews who remained were killed or exiled.
Yiftah Shalev, the excavation’s co-director on behalf of the Israel Antiquities Authority, said the team exposed 6 to 7 meters of the moat, or nearly 10%. He dismissed the notion that the enormous trench was nothing more than a stone quarry.
Yiftah Shalev of the Israel Antiquities Authority stands in front of a section of the moat. (Photo by Eliyahu Yanai, City of David)
“We assume it served as some kind of defense,” Shalev told RNS. “You don’t leave a large trench in the heart of the city during the period Jerusalem was the capital of the Judean Kingdom. It would be an obstacle to residents at the time.”
Given the magnitude of the moat, Shalev speculates that it also served as a symbol of the Judean kings’ wealth and prowess.
A section of the monumental fortifications that protected the kings of Jerusalem. \(Photo by Eliyahu Yanai, City of David)
“It’s as if they are saying, look, if we can build something so impressive, imagine what else we can do!”
Garfinkel agreed. “There has long been a debate about when Jerusalem became a real capital city,” he said. “This discovery, and discoveries in other ancient cities from that time, altogether change the notion of the strength of the Kingdom of Judah.”
Eli Escusido, director of the Israel Antiquities Authority, said the City of David digs “never cease to amaze” not only because they enhance our understanding of the Bible, but because of the engineering skill needed to build the kingdom.
“It is impossible not to be filled with wonder and appreciation for those ancient people who, about 3,800 years ago, literally moved mountains and hills,” Escusido said.
