As American synagogues have struggled with declining membership and attendance, they have sought innovative ways to attract congregants. Liel Leibovitz argues that these initiatives are often ineffective, and has some suggestions of his own—based on the principle that, “if you have to compete against Alex Rodriguez, play chess instead of baseball.” He writes:

[F]or the most part, American shuls have been trying to regain relevance by offering the very same services and attractions that competitors were providing far more attractively. Why come to yoga in the shul’s musty basement when the studio across the street is well appointed and slicker? Or why invest in musicians to grace services when their betters are playing the concert hall down the block? And who goes to a singles event at the local synagogue when JDate and JSwipe, not to mention Tinder and so many others, are a flick away?

[Instead, synagogues] should . . . ask themselves “what, specifically, is it that we do here?” And the answer might surprise them in its stark simplicity: what we do in synagogues is good, old-fashioned religion.

Rather than abandoning the traditional mantle for other, lighter ones that feel more colorful and cool and contemporary, synagogues should reiterate that their predominant commitment is, as it has always been, to the collective practice of religious ritual. . . . [T]hey should invest in training members of the clergy to speak confidently and knowledgeably about the words we recite when we pray and the intricate theology these prayers form and the subtle but meaningful ways in which this theology differs from other belief systems.

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.