December brought two significant developments in Jewish-Christian relations: a statement from the Vatican affirming the sacredness of Judaism in Catholic doctrine and a statement from an Orthodox Israeli organization describing Christianity as a component of the divine plan. Examining these statements, Peter Berger argues that dialogue between the faiths must not be limited to doctrinal questions, an especially important point for those who do not subscribe to a literalist interpretation of their scriptures:

Jews and Christians who cannot understand the Scriptures in . . . a literal way don’t really have the problem [of resolving] how the two covenants relate to each other—both are historically questionable. The question of whether they have a common faith must be addressed through a much more nuanced assessment of the core of each tradition, rather than through the quasi-juridical decision [as to] whether the same covenant covers both traditions. . . . I think that such an assessment will lead to the proposition that yes, Jews and Christians do have a shared faith in the same God.

The other questions, about common moral and political concerns, will also have to be addressed beyond the [strictly doctrinal issues]. These concerns have been strongly expressed in interfaith statements for many years since World War II—that anti-Semitism is a blasphemous offense against God and man; that any persecution of people because of their religion is morally unacceptable; that the state of Israel has a fundamental right to exist in safety. And recalling the Holocaust is a useful help in formulating every one of these concerns.

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.