The Justice Department is currently pushing an approach to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that, according to Howard Slugh and Mitchell Rocklin, would turn judges into interpreters of religious doctrine and thereby undermine accepted understandings of religious freedom:

The RFRA requires the government to demonstrate the compelling nature of any law that would place a substantial burden on a person’s religious exercise. This leads to the inevitable question of what constitutes a “substantial burden.” . . . Religious plaintiffs have argued that the test requires courts to weigh the burden of the punishment a religious person may face for refusing to violate his faith, rather than the importance of the religious practice at issue. . . The administration rejects this view, arguing that a judge must “look at the [religious] action that the plaintiffs want to take.” . . . According to this view, if a court decides that a particular religious principle is unimportant, the state can force a believer to choose between violating it and facing a draconian punishment. . . .

[S]uch a test would inevitably ensnare courts in thorny doctrinal questions. . . . A government that adjudicates the relative merits of religious commandments has invaded the most central and sacred sphere of life, usurping the role of ministers, priests, rabbis, and imams.

On Tuesday, a Hizballah drone attack injured three people in northern Israel. The next day, another attack, targeting an IDF base, injured eighteen people, six of them seriously, in Arab al-Amshe, also in the north. This second attack involved the simultaneous use of drones carrying explosives and guided antitank missiles. In both cases, the defensive systems that performed so successfully last weekend failed to stop the drones and missiles. Ron Ben-Yishai has a straightforward explanation as to why: the Lebanon-backed terrorist group is getting better at evading Israel defenses. He explains the three basis systems used to pilot these unmanned aircraft, and their practical effects:

These systems allow drones to act similarly to fighter jets, using “dead zones”—areas not visible to radar or other optical detection—to approach targets. They fly low initially, then ascend just before crashing and detonating on the target. The terrain of southern Lebanon is particularly conducive to such attacks.

But this requires skills that the terror group has honed over months of fighting against Israel. The latest attacks involved a large drone capable of carrying over 50 kg (110 lbs.) of explosives. The terrorists have likely analyzed Israel’s alert and interception systems, recognizing that shooting down their drones requires early detection to allow sufficient time for launching interceptors.

The IDF tries to detect any incoming drones on its radar, as it had done prior to the war. Despite Hizballah’s learning curve, the IDF’s technological edge offers an advantage. However, the military must recognize that any measure it takes is quickly observed and analyzed, and even the most effective defenses can be incomplete. The terrain near the Lebanon-Israel border continues to pose a challenge, necessitating technological solutions and significant financial investment.