Last week, a British tribunal ruled on the case of doctor who told his boss, in the midst of a conversation about how to interact with transsexual patients, that he would refuse to address “any six-foot-tall bearded man” as “madam.” The doctor was then told that, if so, he would have to leave his position, which he did. But, writes, Dan Hitchens, the most disturbing part of the story is the text of the legal decision against the doctor:

Much of the tribunal’s judgment is barely readable, . . . but it puts its central point clearly enough: a “lack of belief in transgenderism” is “incompatible with human dignity and”—yes—”conflicts with the fundamental rights of others.”

Dr. Mackereth’s bosses might easily have sought a compromise: for instance, people who identify as trans could be passed on to a different doctor. Unfortunately—the tribunal judgment tells us—such a policy might have caused “offense or the potential for offense.” Just imagine! . . . The doctor . . . argued at the employment tribunal that he had suffered discrimination, prompting [the tribunal] to rule that, if you don’t think a man can become a woman—as rather a lot of us don’t—then your view is “incompatible with human dignity.”

First, if this judgment is correct, then presumably anyone can be forced out of a public-sector job on the off chance that he might, at some unspecified point, “offend” some unspecified trans person. Second, the judgment’s expansive wording tells everyone who doesn’t buy [into current orthodoxies] that their views—not even their actions—are against “human dignity.”

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.