Currently Rand Paul, the junior senator from Kentucky, is holding up two bills that otherwise enjoy wide bipartisan backing. One authorizes $38 billion in security aid to Israel over the next ten years; the other simply expresses approval of state and local measures denying government contracts to businesses that boycott the Jewish state. The editors of the Weekly Standard dissect the senator’s position:

Rand Paul and other opponents of the [anti-boycott bill] say they’re worried it runs afoul of the First Amendment’s [guarantee of freedom of] speech. But the right to free speech does not entail a right to government contracts. . . .

As [for the other bill]: as usual, Paul is holding up critical legislation in order to make a confused political statement. His explanation for opposing the security-assistance bill was in effect a diatribe against foreign aid. He pointed repeatedly to the assistance given to “enemies of the U.S. and Israel” and named Pakistan and the Palestinian Authority (PA). “Why are we giving twice as much money to nations that surround Israel, which forces Israel to spend more on defense?” Aid to Israel, he said, “should be paid for by cutting aid to people who hate Israel and America.”

But the United States does not give aid to Israel’s chief enemies: Hamas, Hizballah, and Iran. These entities are classified as foreign terrorist organizations or, in Iran’s case, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism. We also routinely veto [UN] aid to the Palestine Liberation Organization. As for the PA, the United States can both cut aid to it—which it has in any case done under the Trump administration—and increase assistance to Israel. There’s no reason not to do both.

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.