According to a recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine, about fifteen to twenty newborns are euthanized in the Netherlands every year after being diagnosed with conditions involving “unbearable suffering.” This figure is but a fraction of the 600 Dutch infants who die annually because physicians and parents decide to discontinue medical interventions. Wesley Smith sees here the inevitable consequences of the country’s laws, which have for years been among the world’s laxest in tolerating medical homicide:

[E]uthanasia in the Netherlands has metastasized from killing the terminally ill, to the chronically ill, to people with disabilities, to the elderly, to people with dementia, to the mentally ill, to children of any age, and babies born with serious disabilities.

Here’s a recent example. . . . A dementia patient had indicated she would want euthanasia, but she wanted to decide when. After becoming incompetent, she never asked to be killed. Moreover, when the doctor brought it up, she repeatedly said no.

So what happened? Her doctor drugged the patient—and when she woke up and resisted the lethal jab, she had the family hold her down so the killing could be completed! How a woman who clearly fought to live—and indeed, who, according to the killing doctor, said no three times—was experiencing “unbearable suffering” is beyond me. The response of the [Dutch] courts? Praise for the doctor. And then, the government expanded legal euthanasia practice to include drugging dementia patients and killing them when the doctor wants—even if the patient does not agree as to time and method—if the patient had asked for euthanasia in an advance directive.

That’s what always happens when Dutch doctors push beyond the supposed strict boundaries. The boundaries are just erased.

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.