Recent years have seen the rise of professionals, and then whole departments, whose mandate is to ensure diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)—first in universities, and later in private corporations. Yet including Jews or granting them “equity” is not a priority for the DEI consultants and commissars. Quite the opposite, writes Seth Mandel:

On campus, DEI bureaucracies are straightforward ideological enforcers. Their ideology views Jews as emissaries of (white) power. That’s why DEI officials aren’t merely indifferent to campus Jew-baiting, but its ringleaders.

In 2021, Jewish employees of a Stanford University mental-health division filed complaints against the university over incidents in a staff DEI program. According to Inside Higher Education, staff were divided into two groups, one for people of color and the other for “whiteness accountability.” The Jewish employees were told to join the “whiteness accountability” group because it was for all who are complicit in systemic racism, including those who are “white-passing.” According to the complaints, the DEI committee “endorsed the narrative that Jews are connected to white supremacy, advancing anti-Semitic tropes concerning Jewish power, conspiracy, and control.”

In 2021, amid a rash of anti-Jewish violence around the country, the Rutgers University chancellor Christopher Molloy and the provost Francine Conway unequivocally denounced the hate, . . . and then promptly apologized for doing so. “Our diversity must be supported by equity, inclusion, antiracism, and the condemnation of all forms of bigotry and hatred, including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia,” they said, titling the second statement “An Apology.” That pernicious apology was clarifying, because it insisted that “diversity” and empathy for Jewish suffering are mutually exclusive.

The administrators, educators, and bureaucrats at America’s colleges and universities are to blame for this state of affairs. And they should be held accountable for it.

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.