In December, an evangelical college in Illinois suspended a professor on allegations of “heresy.” Her crime? Declaring that Muslims and Christians worship the same God. After discussing Muslim and Jewish arguments to the contrary, which date back to the 1st century CE, Peter Berger argues in favor of the professor’s assertion:

If one steps back from the important theological differences among these three west Asian religions, one may look at them from the perspectives of south and east Asia, especially those of Hinduism and Buddhism. The similarities between the three “Abrahamic” religions stick out more visibly than the differences. To be sure, the religions that emerged from the Indian subcontinent, especially in their most sophisticated versions, also point to an underlying unity beyond the many gods. . . . But this unity, disguised by the illusions endemic to the endless wheel of reincarnations, rebirths, and re-deaths, is far removed from the view of all reality as created by the one God whose promise is eternal glory.

Do Christians and Muslims worship the same God? The present interfaith etiquette answers “yes.” This is certainly useful politically in the confrontation with radical Islamism, and I would not deplore this use against a dangerous and utterly evil movement. But one can also answer the question with a “yes” for analytic rather than political reasons. Muslim tradition has maintained that the Quran reveals 99 names of God. . . . But the 99 names of God do not belong to 99 gods. All of them refer to the one God, whom Muslims, Jews, and Christians worship (even when they don’t like the idea).

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.