In the American and American Jewish press, the presence of two prominent evangelical pastors at the dedication of the new Jerusalem embassy provoked handwringing over the strengthening alliance between Israel and Christian Zionists. Responding to the oft-repeated proposition that Israel pays a price for accepting evangelical support, Shmuel Rosner writes:

The price is the identification of Israel with the Christian right in America. That is to say, what Israel gains on the right it loses on the left. And why did Israel decide to pay the price? Two reasons: 1) because the Christian right supports the policies of Israel and the left would only support the policies of another Israel, not the real one, and 2) because the Christian right is supporting it already, while on the left it is not even clear if support is available for grabbing. . . .

[Critics inevitably raise] the risk of turning off American Jews [by accepting evangelical support]. But why is there such risk? Is it because the [Israeli] government would not accept the support of both Jews and evangelicals? Of course not. Is it because the evangelicals would not extend their support if Jews also support Israel? Again, wrong answer. If there is a risk, it stems not from Israel shunning the Jews or from evangelicals shunning the Jews; it stems from Jews shunning the evangelicals, and possibly shunning an Israel supported by evangelicals.

In other words, it is not the choice of Israel, or of evangelical supporters of Israel, to turn off American Jews. It is the choice of American Jews to be turned off. It is their choice to see the support of evangelicals as a reason, or excuse, to be turned off (and, of course, we do not talk in Israel about all American Jews, we only talk about those Jews who are “turned off”).

In many ways, the story of [Jewish] turning off because of evangelicals is not much different from the story of turning off because of other reasons—the Western Wall [mixed-sex-prayer] compromise, Netanyahu [speaking against the Iran deal] in Congress, the Orthodox, the occupation, Gaza shooting, you name it. Israel does what it does, not always wisely, not always perfectly. Still, the choice to be turned off is made by the turned off. And evangelical support is a lame excuse for being turned off, as there is no mandatory either-or situation when it comes to supporting Israel. Jews can support Israel. Evangelicals can support Israel. One does not negate the other—unless you want it to.

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.