In a recent interview, NPR’s Diane Rehm asked Senator Bernie Sanders if he is also a citizen of Israel. (He is not.) Rehm seems to have gotten the idea from a blatantly anti-Semitic online article listing Congressmen who allegedly hold dual citizenship in Israel. What led her and her staff to take the notion seriously in the first place? David Bernstein writes:

For the answer, I think we need to look at what passes for “mainstream” discourse in circles that are highly critical of Israel and its American supporters. . . . [S]ince Bernie Sanders announced he was running for president, he has been pilloried on a variety of “progressive” websites . . . for not holding “progressive” views on Israel, i.e., for not being hostile to Israel. The (false) assumption is that someone on the left would naturally be anti-Israel, unless he has some ulterior motive.

Given this context, in which it’s become acceptable on a wide swath of the left to question the motivations of Jews who support Israel, and in which it’s considered anomalous for a strong progressive to be at all sympathetic to Israel (and Sanders is both sympathetic and often quite critical), I don’t find it entirely shocking that a website listing Sanders and other prominent Jews as Israeli citizens didn’t strike Rehm and her staff as inherently ridiculous. . . .

[Many progressives] don’t mind playing on age-old anti-Semitic themes to advance their agenda. In other cases, they are so certain that their negative views of Israel are correct that they truly can’t believe that anyone would disagree with them unless blinded by loyalty to Israel. When they make what might otherwise seem to be scurrilous accusations, they are not being disingenuous.

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.