Recent weeks have seen a number of pieces in the American and Israeli press attacking National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster and questioning his fitness for his position. Some include the assertions that he is unfriendly to Israel and favors a conciliatory strategy toward Iran. Yaakov Amidror and Eran Lerman, both of whom have held senior positions on the Israeli National Security Council and in IDF military intelligence, disagree:

Israeli officers and scholars who have worked with McMaster say that he was always highly appreciative of Israel and of its contributions to the security of the U.S. They attest to his broad support for and admiration of the IDF. It is absurd to assert that, all these years, hidden underneath McMaster’s friendliness was a grudge against Israel that the general is now free to act on. . . . [W]hatever the reasons may have been for his decision to relieve certain senior National Security Council officials of their duties, anti-Semitic or anti-Israeli sentiments were certainly not part of the calculus.

Israelis and friends of Israel in the U.S. do not need to agree with every position McMaster has taken, nor should the general be immune to specific policy criticism, such as the Trump administration’s failure to put forward coherent policies on Syria or Iran. But McMaster is not an enemy. It is wrong to assault his personal reputation, especially when the attack is based on hearsay. . . .

McMaster, and the other generals who now form the backbone of the Trump administration, should be treated as representative of an American defense establishment whose positive views of Israel are by now an important aspect of the special relationship [between the two countries], and whose importance within the American system has grown steadily since 9/11. The days of anti-Israel attitudes in the Pentagon are long gone.

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.