As comparing refugee crises has become more common, so has equating those who today are cautious about allowing large numbers of Syrian refugees into their countries with those who refused entry to Jewish refugees in the late 1930s. James Kirchick objects:

Syrian refugees pouring into Europe are not fleeing imminent death. They are leaving refugee camps in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey that, though hardly ideal, are not Auschwitz. In 1939, moreover, there was no Israel to protect the hunted Jews of Europe, whereas today more than a handful of ostentatiously rich Arab Muslim countries have barely lifted a finger to alleviate the plight of their brethren.

As to the deeper question of assimilation, while there were no legitimate concerns as to whether Jewish refugees from Europe shared the liberal democratic values of American society, or as to whether they might become susceptible to radicalization by a global terrorist movement, the same can hardly be said about today’s Syrians (this observation applies more to Europe than it does America, which does a far better job assimilating immigrants, Muslims or not). . . .

Invoking the American nativism of the 1930s to win points in the current debate over Syrian refugees is ironic, moreover, because going by that analogy it’s not just xenophobic conservatives who are guilty of reviving the chauvinist spirits of America First but isolationist progressives as well. Led by the president of the United States, they have counseled a hands-off policy toward Bashar al-Assad, whose depredations in Syria have led to 300,000 dead and half the country’s population displaced. Would not those who truly learned the [supposed] universal lesson of the Holocaust, “never again,” have done everything in their power to put an end to the source of the refugee crisis, that is, the murderous barbarism of the Assad regime, just as the victorious Allies destroyed Nazi Germany, tormentor of the Jews and the enemy of human civilization itself?

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.