In 2015, the Supreme Court heard the case of Little Sisters of the Poor, a group of nuns seeking to receive an accommodation from healthcare regulations that, they argued, impinged on their religious freedom. The Supreme Court issued no definitive ruling, but in 2017 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) agreed to grant the nuns the same exemptions granted to churches—citing the 1993 Religious Freedom Reformation Act (RFRA) as requiring such a decision. But the governments of New Jersey and Pennsylvania then sued HHS on the grounds that only courts, not regulatory bodies, could create such exemptions. The Supreme Court will now hear this case as well. Howard Slugh comments:

The states’ novel interpretation of RFRA is contrary to the statute’s intent and text and would harm religious Americans. Under the existing understanding of RFRA, agencies must independently determine if their regulations violate the law. . . . Under the interpretation of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, however, RFRA does not require agencies to perform such reviews. In fact, they are forbidden from conducting them unless some other statute empowers them to do so.

If the Supreme Court rules for the states, it will result in unnecessary lawsuits—lawsuits that could have been avoided though cooperation between agencies and religious groups. Agencies will inevitably write rules that inadvertently burden religious Americans’ faith. Under the current rules, they can grant exemptions once they’re informed of the conflict. However, if the states prevail, those agencies can’t act until they are sued and a court finds that their regulation violated RFRA. Such a process would be costly and time-consuming and would create unnecessary acrimony.

Jewish Americans perform many religious practices that government actors may not know about. We should therefore support the commonsense understanding of RFRA, which would allow government agencies to work cooperatively with the Jewish community to ensure that such practices are protected.

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.