While hostility toward the Jewish state, and distortions of news stories about it, are nothing new coming from the New York Times, neither it nor likeminded publications have managed to sway the American populace, which remains overwhelmingly sympathetic to Israel. Nonetheless, argues Jonathan Tobin, the sins of the Times should be a matter of concern because of the paper’s influence on American Jewry. He cites two recent examples:

In a piece that first appeared online on May 7, a story about the way the Israeli defense establishment has devoted its resources to fighting the coronavirus pandemic began with the following: “The Israeli Defense Ministry’s research-and-development arm is best known for pioneering cutting-edge ways to kill people and blow things up, with stealth tanks and sniper drones among its more lethal recent projects. But its latest mission is lifesaving.”

Nor was this an isolated example. Two days later, the paper published an article about the refusal of the Palestinian Authority to cease its . . . policy [of providing] terrorists who assault, wound, or kill Israelis with salaries and pensions for their families. The story focused on an attempt to stop Palestinian banks in the West Bank from processing the payments. The headline for the Times’s story though, put it this way: “Israel Cracks Down on Banks Over Payments to Palestinian Inmates.” . . . Phrased that way, it makes the effort sound like a way to punish poor souls who have had the bad luck to fall under the power of the Israeli military and whose families are being prevented from getting the help they need.

While some Jews are outraged by biased coverage that unfairly depicts Israel as a villain, others internalize theses calumnies and distance themselves from the Jewish state. An average consumer of news may not be influenced by the Times. But a not-insignificant portion of American Jewry still regards the newspaper with the sort of veneration that observant Jews have for religious texts. The Times . . . may not have turned Americans against Israel, but it has been doing a bang-up job of turning Jews against each other for decades.

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.