Last week, three Israeli Arabs on a beach near Haifa were attacked and severely beaten by a group of Israeli Jews armed with clubs and knives and shouting ethnic slurs; the incident ended when passersby intervened. Police have arrested two suspects thus far. Ben-Dror Yemini cautions against joining what Salman Rushdie termed the “but brigade”—those who immediately follow condemnations of acts of terror with the word “but,” followed by justifications and rationalizations:

[A]nyone who condemns, but then immediately moves to “but,” is not really condemning—he’s supporting. This is exactly the story of those in the gray area between “understanding” and “justifying” terror attacks against Jews, and this is exactly where we must not be when dealing with Jewish terrorists. There is also no need for generalizations. The fact that hundreds shouted “in blood and fire we’ll save Palestine” at the funeral of Ahmad Mohammad Hamid, [the Israeli Arab killed while trying to stab a police officer], doesn’t turn all Israeli Arabs into supporters of murder and terrorism. And the fact that among the Jewish public there are a few who carry out abominable acts, or support them, doesn’t turn Israel into a racist and inciting state.

There is official incitement from the Palestinian Authority against Israelis and Jews. Here and there, there is also incitement against Arabs in Israel. But comparing the two is like comparing apples and oranges. Palestinian terrorism is the result of incitement. The fact that Jewish terrorism—such as the murder of the Arab teen Mohammed Abu Khdeir [in 2014]—is a rare, very rare occurrence is the result of the lack of incitement. . . .

[T]he fact that inside Israel there is Arab violence against Jews—even if it’s a rare occurrence—does not justify leniency when it comes to violence against Arabs. The violence must be eradicated with a firm hand. No forgiveness. No understanding. And if the punishment of Jewish hooligans is lesser by even an inch than the punishment of Arab hooligans under similar circumstances—that would be racism and the encouragement of violence.

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.