A small but growing number of American evangelical Christians have criticized their movements’ pro-Israel stance, and there is even a George-Soros-funded organization that supports them. Mark Tooley gives the background and points the way forward:

A new generation of evangelical leaders is more reluctant to wade into the [Israeli-Palestinian] controversy. Some old religious-Right figures were believers in dispensationalism, a 19th-century movement . . . stressing various end-times events, including the restoration of Israel, before Christ’s return. . . . [M]illions of sincere Christians adhere to some version of [dispensationalism]. Critics of Christian Zionism often critique dispensationalism as apocalyptic and imply it is the main force for evangelical support for Israel. They also claim that dispensationalism is on the decline, with little pull among young evangelicals.

But most pro-Israel Christians, including evangelicals, have never been full-throttle dispensationalists. They instead focus on sympathy for world Jewry after the Holocaust, the ongoing threat of anti-Semitism, nasty anti-Israel regimes like theocratic Iran, Israel’s thriving democracy, Israel’s alliance with America, and more recently, Israel as an oasis of protection for Middle East Christians, under siege nearly everywhere else.

Many evangelicals and other Christians also mystically believe . . . in an ongoing organic, familial tie between Christianity and Judaism, of which the land of Israel is a not insignificant part. . . .

Neither providence nor the Bible is neutral between a people striving to survive [and those] many others who hope for their elimination. Effectively explaining why requires both good political and theological judgment.

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.