Today’s anti-Semitism, writes Shmuel Trigano, even if it is not so different from the anti-Semitism of previous eras, finds its main expression in objection to the Jewish state’s existence. But while the Muslim variant is explicable in that it is rooted in religious rejection of Jewish sovereignty in the midst of the Middle East, the Western variety is harder to understand:

Western anti-Zionism . . . predicates itself on “compassion” and memory of the Holocaust. Not only does Western anti-Zionism accuse the Jews and the state of Israel of cynically exploiting the memory of the Holocaust; not only does it equate the Holocaust with the Palestinian “Nakba” (caused by the failed war of annihilation against the Jews in Israel) by establishing the Jews as modern-day Nazis, but the West has become a world where monuments and museums are erected to preserve the memory of the Holocaust, while the state of Israel is simultaneously outcast and stigmatized under the auspices of the boycott, divestment, and sanctions movement and legal warfare. Memory of the Holocaust is permitted; the right to the Western Wall is not.

The French [statesman] General Charles de Gaulle expressed this view perfectly in his outrageous comments following the Six-Day War, when he asserted that Israel had crossed its moral and political boundaries. The existence of the Jewish state, according to de Gaulle, was a form of compensation for the Holocaust and reparation for Europe’s crime against the Jewish people. With that, the Jews—in his mind—do not have the right to [violate European-imposed] boundaries or deem themselves sovereign or independent, and if they dare think otherwise, they will lose the support of France, which will no longer come to help them if they are in danger of being destroyed. . . .

At the core of [this sort of anti-Semitism], which [is just the old anti-Semitism] cloaked in different attire, is the humiliated Jew, stripped of legitimacy, denied any justification for living according to the accepted norms of the times, [and] attacked in a tangible way.

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.