Last fall, on his first day of classes as an undergraduate at Stanford University, Zohar Levy, upon mentioning to a fellow student that she is an Israeli-American, instantly found herself being grilled about the Israel-Palestinian conflict. And that was one of the less unpleasant experiences she’s had:

As a Jewish student at Stanford with a strong commitment to human rights, I often feel excluded from discourse intended to protect minorities. Even on this campus, I have been told by peers and professors that all Jews are privileged, all Jews are rich and cheap, all Jews are white, and all Jews have big noses. The new wave of anti-Judaism includes a new trope: all Jews who support Israel hate Muslims and Arabs. Normalizing these anti-Semitic assumptions has allowed students to express freely aggression and hatred toward Israel and Israelis. If this slander or abhorrent language were directed toward any other nationality, it would never be tolerated. While Stanford students are quick to say they support all communities, commonplace anti-Israel rhetoric on our campus is clear, repeated hypocrisy.

Stanford’s administration, professors, and students have failed to support the Israeli community and students who support Israel. This pervasive, anti-Israel commentary rarely comes with intentions for respectful dialogue. It promotes the misperception that one cannot support both Israel and Palestinian, and that supporting Israel is inherently “anti-Palestinian.”

Denying me, an Israeli citizen, protection from harassment . . . at Stanford is a tremendous oversight on the part of a community that prides itself on diversity, tolerance, and open scholarly discourse. Quite simply, these ignorant and hateful comments have no place on our campus. I ask to be treated with the same humanity in this conversation as you would peers from any other political, religious, ethnic, or racial background.

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.