This week the first season of the Israeli series Vale of Tears, which follows IDF soldiers fighting in the Golan Heights during the Yom Kippur War, came to an end. Jonathan Spyer liked much about the show, but notes a disturbing failure:

[I]t is frustrating once more to see Israeli society and military culture portrayed very clearly through a kind of post-Zionist and leftist lens. Not because I want to see nationalist propaganda on screen (I very much don’t), but simply because this [perspective] deliberately omits a salient element of the Israeli-Jewish experience—[that of the segment of Israeli society motivated] by a sense of Jewish national rights, Jewish tradition, and [a belief in] the rightness of Israel’s cause vis-à-vis the Arab effort to destroy it.

This [set of beliefs] stands at the center of Israeli Jewish society, and is reflected in its voting patterns, much of its cultural product and consumption, its levels of religious and traditional observance, and so forth. This is the side of Israeli society that, despite the renaissance of Israeli cinema and TV drama in recent years, rarely makes it to the screen, and even more rarely makes it to international audiences, but understanding of which is crucial to understanding the country and its decisions and directions.

A considerable part of [Vale of Tears] was concerned with social and political discussion. In this area, we had a very large helping of the far-left, anti-Zionist critique of Israel, and even a scene where an articulate and serious character enunciates the Arab nationalist case against Zionism and Israel. There was not one sentence, however, in which the case for Jewish national rights and sovereignty in Israel was made. This is a rather odd and disappointing state of affairs. Its main deleterious effect, I think, is that it results in a lurid . . . and distorted picture of Israeli society being presented both to the domestic audience and, no less importantly, to international viewers.

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.