Comparing the biblical description of the rainbow as a sign of God’s postdiluvian covenant with mankind to understandings of the rainbow in other ancient Near Eastern literature, Ron Hendel argues that the differences speak more loudly than the similarities. Ancient Mesopotamians saw the rainbow, like other celestial phenomena, as a sign that, if properly interpreted by skilled astrologers, could portend divine intentions. In Genesis, by contrast:

God is His own omen interpreter, and the encrypted meaning is meant for Him. This turns upside down the customary system of omens and their interpretation. . .

[It is also noteworthy that] Hebrew uses the word keshet for both a bow as a weapon . . . and for a rainbow; the former meaning is primary. Since the flood story is not about combat, the presence of God’s bow may seem out of place. . . .

[I]n the Mesopotamian creation account, . . . after the warrior-god Marduk uses his mighty bow and arrows to defeat the sea-monster Tiamat, the high god Anu places the bow in heaven as a bright star. . . .

God’s bow in Genesis has a comparable resonance. In the flood story, God triumphs over chaos. But the chaos in the flood story is not the rage of a sea-monster, it is rather the violence of all flesh that has corrupted its ways on earth, and which has, as a consequence, corrupted the earth. The flood is God’s natural agent to cleanse the earth from the violence of bloodshed.

After the waters of the flood have receded, God hangs His bow in the sky, . . . but the bow is not His triumphant weapon. The rainbow is a sign of peace, of God’s promise that the flood will never come again.

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.