Letters to the editor of the Guardian, each signed by long lists of people and advocating this or that trendy moral cause, have become routine, notes Douglas Murray. All too often, the target of these letters is Israel. A recent such epistle, condemning an Israeli film festival, is a testament mainly to the self-importance of its signatories:

The letter that went into the Guardian this week was unusual in having almost nobody sign it who is a household name. The letter was a demand from a group of “artists, producers, and concerned citizens,” who, it said, “are disappointed and saddened to see that [certain London] cinemas are hosting the Israeli Film and Television Festival.”

It takes a particular type of ego to think their “sadness” should be the subject of a public declaration. . . . As you might guess, the signatories claim the right to decide what should or should not be shown and where, because they say they are in the movie business. . . .

The same names crop up again and again [in letters condemning Israel]. Little, if any, rigor is paid to whether the signatories of such letters even do what they say they do, or have opinions worthy of any note. Beneath the barely-built veneer of “professionals objecting to something in their own profession” is just the same tiny number of anti-Israel and anti-Jewish obsessives. A sprinkling of “as a Jew” Jews . . . helps, of course. But the aim is clear. These people, step by step, want to make every expression of Israeli and Jewish cultural life subject to their idea of how a nation under constant threat of terrorist bombardment should behave. They denounce Israel as a militaristic society and then attempt to outlaw every non-militaristic cultural and artistic expression from that society.

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.