“Anti-racism” has for years been a major tenet of Britain’s Labor party, and especially its left wing, notes Tomiwa Owolade; yet those who most proudly proclaimed themselves anti-racists were often most zealous in defending some of the party’s most prominent figures against charges anti-Semitism. To Owolade, this situation is not so contradictory as it may seem, for the very understanding of racism embraced by the British left—and much of the American—is blind to anti-Semitism, and may even encourage it. He cites the opinions of Ash Sarkar, an influential, young, left-wing British journalist who has proven herself eager to condemn Israel and to dismiss any accusations of anti-Semitism against Laborites:

Sarkar . . . argues that anti-racism is actually about dismantling the material inequalities in our society, and that “racism against Jewish people does not result in the harsher prison sentences, wage gaps, stop and search, or unequal healthcare outcomes that we see with other groups.”

[Hatred of] Jews, by this logic, does not qualify as racism, under this definition which emphasizes “structural inequalities”—that same definition to which Sarkar and many others are most attached. If structural inequalities are the basis for racism, then Jews in contemporary Britain cannot by definition be victims of racism. This concept of racism is not only insensitive to anti-Semitism; it also fails to account for prejudice against other minorities in Britain.

Structural inequalities might be a consequence of race, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that they are. If these outcomes were necessarily because of race, this wouldn’t just mean that minorities with worse outcomes were racially disadvantaged. It would also imply that some minorities, like Jewish people, are racially privileged. (And remember: if you are racially privileged, you can’t be a victim of racism.)

This isn’t simply wrongheaded. In the case of anti-Semitism, it is especially dangerous. As the German social democrat August Babel said, anti-Semitism is the “socialism of the fools.” Jews supposedly possess power and privilege; so to “call them out” thus makes one a foe of structural inequalities.

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.