In the U.S., some have complained that, in areas where houses of worship remain closed due to coronavirus-related restrictions, mass demonstrations are allowed that seem to pose equivalent or greater risks of spreading infection. The same problem exists in Israel, writes Raphael Bouchnik-Chen:

For the religiously observant citizen, whether Jew, Muslim, or Christian, it is no small matter to be subjected to restrictive decrees that cut one off from the ritual framework in which one was raised and educated. In the case of the coronavirus restrictions, the religious public accepts the law of the land and obeys it on the understanding that this is not an arbitrary caprice but a necessity stemming from difficult times—indeed from a force majeure that has visited the global pandemic upon us.

And yet, as if in a parallel world where the pandemic is nothing more than an urban legend, fervent mass demonstrations . . . to be held regularly, particularly around Prime Minister Netanyahu’s official residence on Balfour Street in Jerusalem. Thousands crowd together in small spaces for this purpose, making a mockery of social-distancing regulations. Furthermore, the protests’ organizers repeatedly take to the media and the social networks to encourage all and sundry to flock to Balfour Street.

All of this is done in the name of democracy and freedom of expression, and with the backing of the Supreme Court and the justice minister, who declared with triumphant pride, “In the coronavirus law we made sure that the right to demonstrate will not be compromised. This is how a strong democracy operates in a time of emergency. Any attempt to subvert this ruling is an attempt to subvert the rights of the citizen.”

In other words, the right to demonstrate is a sacred cow that is not to be questioned under any circumstances. The right to pray, however, does not warrant such protection.

Such an attitude, argues Bouchnik-Chen, makes a mockery of both public safety and the very rights the justice minister claims to champion.

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.