With its first branch founded New York City in 1874, the Young Men’s Hebrew Association (YMHA)—joined in 1888 by the Young Women’s Hebrew Association—soon became an important feature of Jewish communal life in many American locales. Jenna Weissman Joselit explains why:

At first, some American Jews conceived of the YMHA as an alternative to the Young Men’s Christian Association, whose origins dated back to antebellum America. Often the only public place in town with a gymnasium, the YMCA attracted a growing number of American Jewish men eager to be physically fit, arousing concerns lest they be led astray once inside its Christian walls. One Jewish communal leader didn’t mince words: the YMCA, he said, was a “menace.”

Others thought of a Jewish “Y” in less defensive and more positive terms: as an opportunity for “developing the manhood of” American Jews, a place where, amid dignified conversation, chess matches, and rounds of calisthenics, they might find “something of their own”; a place where it mattered not a whit where one’s parents came from or what kind of Judaism they practiced; a place to be with your own kind.

It didn’t take long, though, before the YMHA became mired in controversy, the recipient of “tirades” from rabbis who fretted lest the organization undermine the primacy of the synagogue or, worse still, generate a vacuous, empty-headed kind of American Jew familiar with the latest fads or “novelties” but woefully ignorant of Jewish history and tradition. The YMHA, hotly declared one of its detractors in 1881, is “Hebrew only in name and because its members are all of Jewish birth.”

As Joselit describes, these criticisms led to the creation of alternative Jewish centers that combined synagogue and recreational activities, which later gave way to the Jewish community centers that persist today. Each variation both responded and became subjected to laments about contemporary Jewish life that sound intensely familiar today.

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.