While some levelheaded friends of the Jewish state have criticized Jerusalem’s decision to stop a visit from Congresswomen Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib—while giving the latter permission to come to the country in a private capacity to visit her grandmother—Ari Hoffman argues that Israel acted prudently:

Omar and Tlaib were visiting Israel to do it harm. Their visit was not one of critical engagement. . . . If there is cynicism in this episode, it is not on the part of Israel, which was forced to make a difficult decision under impossible circumstances, facing pressure from its own democratic commitments and the elected leader of its most vital ally.

Rather, Tlaib and Omar demand both their cake and the right to consume it: Yes to boycotting, and yes to visiting. Yes to indulgence in anti-Semitic tropes, and yes to unfettered access to the state of the Jews. Yes to their congressional prerogatives, and no to joining a bipartisan group that just visited Israel and spent time in Ramallah considering both sides in the conflict. These trips are well established, and members of Congress are never barred from meeting with a wide range of voices between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.

The details that have emerged about their trip, on the other hand, are damning and unprecedented. They labeled their destination Palestine, rather than Israel. They refused to meet with any Israeli officials, in either the governing coalition or the opposition. In truth, they were not visiting Israel at all. Their itinerary was to a fantasy where Israel does not exist yet is simultaneously an oppressor and a catastrophe, where Palestinians are endlessly victimized, and nuance and complexity are not on the agenda.

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.