In the 1920s, many leading figures in Yiddish literature and scholarship relocated to, or chose to stay in, the Soviet Union, where they found government support for their work, albeit at the cost of ideological conformity. Zelig Kalmanovitch, a leading East European Jewish intellectual at the time—and an anti-Communist who, later in his life, would embrace both Zionism and Orthodoxy—was greatly disappointed when he saw his friends make this decision. Kalmanovitch’s leading biographer, Joshua Karlip, reflects:

Over the past several weeks, I have thought quite a bit about Kalmanovitch’s feelings of betrayal and foreboding as one Jewish-studies colleague after another has added his or her voice to the anti-Israel chorus present in academia today. Colleagues at secular universities report to me the enormous pressure exerted on them by their departments to sign anti-Israel proclamations. Many do so, fearing for their careers.

One major difference exists, however, between [Soviet Jewish scholars of the 1920s] and Jewish-studies professors on U.S. university campuses in 2021. Captive in a one-party state, [they] had little choice but to translate its orthodoxies regarding the original sins of religion and nationalism into his Yiddish scholarship. In contrast, American Jewish scholars are free not to sign statements calling for the end of Israel. That many are signing these statements anyway reveals either their cowardice or, in many cases, their conviction in the rightness of their cause. History suggests that both motivations are likely to lead to the same dismal result.

Almost all [these writers and scholars] perished in the Stalinist purges of 1936-1937 and 1948-1953, accused by the Soviet government of the same national chauvinism that they had zealously pursued in other Jews.

A century ago, a combination of an aversion to Jewish peoplehood and the naïve belief that Jews possess the power to end anti-Semitism through a disavowal of the Jewish collective compelled some of the leading Yiddishists to sign a national suicide note in the Soviet Union. Nearly 100 years later, these same motivations have led many Jewish-studies scholars to attempt a similar move to channel progressive political passions in what they understand to be a salutary direction here in the United States: they blame Israel for the intensification of hatred against it while embarking on a radical de-Judaization of their own academic discipline.

The larger academic world, however, will not stop its Jew-hatred with calls for the elimination of Israel, no matter how enthusiastically Jewish-studies professors sign on. The same academic departments that today are pressuring Jewish-studies scholars to condemn Israel as an admission ticket to academic respectability will tomorrow turn that hatred on the discipline of Jewish studies and its practitioners.

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.