After his legions crushed the Jewish Revolt in 70 CE, Titus—son and heir of then-Emperor Vespasian—took as his consort Berenice, whose brother, Agrippa II, had been the last king of Judea. (Since the Judean royal family had opposed the rebellion, Titus’ choice might have been a gesture of reconciliation with local loyalists.) Frederic Brandfon notes that many Romans reacted with fear that Berenice would persuade Titus to become a Jew, or that their children would be raised as Jews, and they might find themselves with a Jewish emperor:

Indeed, preceding dynasties had also faced the charge of Judaizing the empire. Emperor Claudius, who preceded Titus by fewer than twenty years, had a visiting dignitary, Isidorus of Alexandria, executed for accusing him of being Jewish. A few years later, Nero, who ruled Rome until 68 CE . . . could not escape association with Jews. His wife was a “God-Fearer,” that is. a person who engaged in some Jewish practices without converting. There was precedent, therefore, for both Titus’s romantic entanglement and the accusations that came with it

Titus understood that Berenice’s potential ascendance to imperial power was a threat, real or imagined, to the future of the nascent Flavian dynasty [founded by his father], which, like all dynasties, needed stability and not controversy. Berenice was forced into exile. . . . The notion that a single Jew could transform Western society into a Jewish empire was a fear that did not die.

Even the actual transformation of the Roman empire through the establishment of Christianity as the state religion—a faith that incorporated the Jewish Bible, and replaced traditional Roman Gods with a crucified Jew—did not bring an end to the charge of Judaizing: later emperors were accused of being Jewish when they took the side of Jews against Christians. In 387 and 388, synagogues were burned in both Rome and Callinicum in Mesopotamia. The Western emperor Magnus Maximus ordered the Roman synagogue rebuilt, and was promptly labeled a Jew.

As Brandfon goes on to demonstrate, strikingly similar fears persisted in Rome itself into modern times.

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.