In Indiana, the lawyer of a mother charged with severely beating her seven-year-old son has claimed that she was following Christian teachings and is thus protected from prosecution by the state’s version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). While this argument lacks any legal merit and is unlikely to convince a judge, some media outlets have seized upon it as grounds on which to object to RFRA and other such laws. Mark Hemingway explains the tendentiousness of this line of reporting:

I suspect providing an accurate understanding of what RFRA laws are was not what the coverage of [the Indiana mother’s] spurious defense was about. . . . Progressive activists, and their abundant allies in the media, clearly want people to perceive religious-freedom laws as being invoked only by scoundrels. They simply hate the idea that RFRA laws could possibly be used successfully to defend Christian pharmacists who don’t want to prescribe abortifacients or Christian grandmothers who serve gay customers but draw the line at providing floral arrangements for gay weddings. . . .

[A]ccurate reporting on RFRA laws might make readers sympathetic to them. Instead, major publications are disingenuously presenting the facts to make it sound as if “religious freedom” is a credible defense of child abusers. [T]hat’s a stunning indictment of the media.

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.