In the past several weeks, reports have emerged, sometimes accompanied by alarming headlines, claiming that new survey data show a precipitous decline in support for the Jewish state among American evangelical Christians. At issue are two surveys: the first, from 2018, shows that 68.7 percent of young evangelicals say they support Israel; the second, from 2021, shows this number dropping to 33.6 percent. But Philip T. Morrow and Amy Gabriel argue that these statistics have been misunderstood:

The 2018 poll rendered a few fascinating conclusions about young evangelicals, most notably predicting a downward trend in their support for Israel in the near future. The researchers [who conducted the survey] note that many commentators are quick to blame young evangelicals’ declining support for Israel on increasing secularism. But they found that young evangelicals are more, not less, religious than many of their older counterparts.

[But] we should consider the timing of both polls. The 2018 poll, conducted in April of that year, was surrounded by one unique talking point regarding Israel: President Donald Trump’s promise to move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, formally acknowledging Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Arguments about the political significance of Jerusalem abounded in political talk shows, articles, sermons, and public discourse. With enough buzz in evangelical circles about the need to support Israel in that season, a poll showing a favorable view of Israel is not shocking.

But in March 2021, well over half of young evangelicals reported rarely hearing talk about the importance of supporting Israel. Given the presidential election, the economy, the COVID-19 pandemic, and several other domestic issues, their conversations have largely not been about Israel, but America.

This does not mean, however, that there has been a radical or inflexible change of heart among young evangelicals in the last three years. Amid such a volatile time, young evangelicals may have hesitated to take a strongly partisan stance on such a [controversial and divisive] issue.

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.