Last week, the Washington, DC chapter of the environmentalist group Sunrise Movement announced that it would not take part in an upcoming rally in favor of statehood for the District of Columbia, because of the involvement of three left-wing Jewish groups that it described as “in alignment with and in support of Zionism and the state of Israel.” Subsequently, the national organization issued a very tepid apology, followed by a statement from the DC branch admitting that its original decision had “fueled anti-Semitism,” but then going on to explain that, while Palestinians and Washingtonians deserve “statehood and political sovereignty,” Jews do not.

Daniel Gordis comments on the affair:

If [the national organization’s] statement makes you feel better, it shouldn’t. Because note what they said. They’re opposed to anti-Semitism and “anti-Palestinian racism.” It’s a deft move, but an important one. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians (is there any other issue regarding which people in the United States think about Palestinians?), they’re now suggesting, is not territorial, or national, or even military. It’s a conflict about race.

That, of course, is ludicrous. If Israel had a problem with Palestinians’ “race,” it would have a problem with the race of Egyptians or Jordanians, too; but the conflict with those countries is over. . . . What stands between Israelis and Palestinians is the Palestinians’ commitment to destroying Israel (Hamas and Hizballah are explicit, Fatah a bit less so until you scratch the surface). What stands between Israelis and Palestinians are, from Israelis’ perspective, Palestinian terror, and from Palestinians’ perspective, occupation. But whatever one may think about those issues, none of them has to do with race.

Why, then, would Sunrise want to frame the conflict in terms of race? Because . . . race is a trump card. Once you’re accused of racism, you’re forever on the defensive. . . . If the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is about race, there are not two sides with narratives that need to be heard. . . . If you’re a Zionist, you’re a racist. If you’re involved with the Religious Action Center of the Reform movement (aligned though it is on many important liberal issues in America), you’re racist. If you’re affiliated with the National Council of Jewish Women, which feels positively about Israel, you’re a racist.

Zionists are racists. Jews are oppressors. We’ve been here before.

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.