In a series of panel discussions and debates while on a recent tour of Jewish communities in North America, Daniel Gordis encountered quite a few who claimed to be “pro-Israel” and “profoundly committed to Israel’s security” but who immediately went on to voice a list of complaints about the Jewish state, mostly focused on Benjamin Netanyahu, settlements, and the status of the West Bank. Many, including writers and some of American Jewry’s “most significant thought leaders in their 30s and 40s,” pointed out that their positions on these issues are shared by a significant portion of Israelis. Suspecting an element of insincerity in their protestations of love, Gordis proposes a litmus test that can be applied to critics of the Jewish state:

If a young American Jewish person were to read everything you’ve written about Israel, what would they encounter? How much is about the occupation or checkpoints, and how much is about Israel’s extraordinary accomplishments, its hardy democracy, and its history of pressing for peace? What portion of your corpus addresses the undeniably anti-modern and even anti-Zionist chief rabbinate, while how much is devoted to new Israeli explorations of Jewish meaning and belonging? To what degree does your written record alert your readers to the richness—but also the soul-searching—that is key to much of contemporary Israeli literature?

This matters because [Diaspora Jews] cannot move the policy needle. [Their] collective writing and speaking in North America is not going to affect Israel’s policy one iota. The needle that we can move is the “devotion needle”—we have the capacity to get young people either to embrace the extraordinary phenomenon that is Israel, or to walk away in anger. . . .

Yet many [writers who claim to be loving critics of Israel] produce work that is almost exclusively about bashing Israel, never reflecting on the much that is good about the Jewish state.

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.