In his Leo Strauss and the Rediscovery of Maimonides, Kenneth Hart Green newly configures the approach taken to the age-old problem of reason and revelation by the towering 12th-century philosopher Moses Maimonides and by his 20th-century interpreter Leo Strauss. Daniel Rynhold writes in his review:

Modern thought, Green argues, has approached religion by either refuting it or “claiming to contain it in versions of rational moralism,” which amounts “merely to [putting] it to sleep by attempting to . . . repress or deny the deeper conflict in the soul of each human being.” . . . As [Friedrich] Nietzsche had before him, Strauss recognized “the frailty of reason as a substitute for religion in political life, never mind what its absence from morality and psychology yields as an access to the human soul.” But while Nietzsche’s response to the threat of nihilism called on man to fill the vacuum himself, . . . Strauss came to understand through his study of Maimonides that Nietzsche’s post-religious nihilism could only be avoided through a return to revelation. . . .

For Green’s Strauss, the key to Maimonidean wisdom is the view that the dialectic between Jerusalem and Athens defines Western civilization; the modernist attempt to dissolve that tension ignores the centrality and power of the religious impulse for human endeavor. . . . Thus . . . Strauss echoes a number of modern Jewish philosophers . . . in thinking that “a balance of forces and a dynamic tension is healthier in the mind than a single dominant view or form of thought in complete control,” and it is in his unearthing of the hidden Maimonides that Strauss discovers the way to navigate this necessary tension. Green’s Strauss is not, therefore, a cynical atheist—and neither is his Maimonides.

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.