Not in the slightest, explains Eugene Kontorovich—despite claims to the contrary made by supporters of the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction (BDS) movement as well as by Abraham Foxman, the outgoing director of the Anti-Defamation League:

In the latest act of a decades-long fight against discriminatory boycotts of Israel, two states have passed, and several are considering, legislation that protects their taxpayers from inadvertently underwriting [anti-Israel] boycotts. . . . These laws have bipartisan support, and they passed unanimously. They enjoy the broad support of mainstream Jewish organizations. Yet some . . . have expressed concerns that legislation that “bars BDS activity by private groups” would raise First Amendment concerns.

Such concerns are entirely misplaced. The current legislation by states does not bar any BDS activity and does not otherwise violate the First Amendment. Indeed, these laws are far milder versions of longstanding federal anti-boycott laws. . . . The new laws only relate to state contracting and public pension funds’ investments. They simply limit a state’s business relationships with companies that discriminatorily limit their own business relations. These laws do not prohibit or penalize any kind of speech. Proponents of boycotting Israel are free to call for such boycotts, encourage others to join them, and participate in them. As the BDS movement itself admits, these laws will not prohibit their activities.

Moreover, the First Amendment allows states to place conditions on doing business with them. Anti-discrimination restrictions on government contractors are commonplace and a normal requirement for government funding. The federal government and many states require contractors and subcontractors to not discriminate on, among other things, “the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.” . . . [A]s President Barack Obama said when signing the executive order prohibiting such discrimination in government contracts, the federal government is not required to “subsidize discrimination.”

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.