In 1933, shortly after Hitler came to power, Germany enacted a law forbidding Jewish ritual slaughter. Three years later, the Polish legislature passed a similar bill, supposedly on humanitarian grounds—but the actual motivations of a government that was increasingly hostile toward Jews, in an era before animal-rights groups, were no mystery. Such laws have of late experienced renewed popularity in Europe, most recently in the form of a 2017 ban in Belgium. Like its Polish predecessor, it comes in the form of a requirement that animals be stunned before slaughter—a measure unacceptable to both halakhah and sharia. Last week, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) upheld the law. Melissa Langsam Braunstein writes:

[T]he CJEU took the rare step of disregarding [its own] advocate general’s recommendation [that religious carve-outs to the law be made], effectively prioritizing animal rights over Jewish and Muslim Europeans’ religious freedom. It’s a striking choice because Europe remains a continent where millions of minks are still farmed for fashion (or culled for COVID-19 infection), and ducks or geese are force-fed to produce foie gras, a process wherein the “liver swells to approximately 600 percent of its normal size.”

Without question, Thursday’s ruling stands in stark contrast to Europeans’ preferred image of themselves as open-minded and tolerant. Insisting that Jews and Muslims adapt religious laws, which seek to minimize animals’ pain, simply to suit contemporary sensibilities is anything but that.

[Moreover], this ruling won’t be contained. Kosher meat, which is already expensive, will likely become even harder to obtain in a growing number of countries. Further, this ruling is likely to encourage political extremists who would relish making life inhospitable for their countries’ Jewish and Muslim minorities.

Europe’s hostility toward religious outsiders is a centuries-old tradition. It appears that it will always find a way to justify bigotry.

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.