Considering the crisis, or crises, that beset American universities, Jonathan Marks puts forward “a conservative case for liberal education” in his aptly named new book Let’s Be Reasonable. In this context, Marks analyzes the anti-Israel mania that has infected so many professors and students, and the very unreasonable Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions movement in particular. Andrew Pessin writes in his review:

Being reasonable in Marks’s view also requires clarity and transparency about one’s premises, conclusions, and aims. BDS presents itself as a “nonviolent” movement to “support Palestinian rights” and no doubt convinces many well-meaning individuals to sign on under that banner. But the easily documented reality, as Marks shows, is that the movement as a whole is perfectly fine with violence, and its goal brazenly includes the destruction of the world’s only Jewish state.

How should a defender of liberal education—in particular one who supports Israel—respond to this campaign? Not, Marks insists, by political propagandizing in the other direction. . . . Nor is the proper response to cancel or “de-platform” campus BDS speakers and events. To be reasonable is to seek truth, and that requires hearing all sides, so silencing one’s opponents is not the answer. Nor, similarly, is the right response to engage in “viewpoint discrimination”—for example, by refusing the establishment of a student group such as Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), a tactic much in the news of late due to a court case resulting from Fordham University’s effort to do just that.

Marks’s vision of a newly energized liberal education is appealing, and Let’s Be Reasonable is an important and timely book. . . . But exactly how effective is his “reasonable” approach when campus anti-Israelism, pursued with a sometimes-fanatic zeal, produces discrimination against Israel and (in particular) the many Jewish students who support her?

[O]ne never wants to stoop to the level of one’s enemies, but if one feels (as many do) that the campus assault on Israel is something akin to a war, that it is truly anti-Semitic in nature, and that it has serious long-term consequences for the wellbeing not merely of Israel but even of Jews in America—then one might think that more is necessary than merely “being reasonable.”

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.