During the much-covered Congressional race in Georgia, the Democratic candidate Jon Ossoff became engaged to Alisha Kramer, his girlfriend of twelve years. The fact that the engagement came swiftly after Ossoff’s personal life presented itself as an electoral liability raised questions about his motivations. But Mark Bauerlein cautions against this sort of cynicism, and turns instead to the question of why this young politician saw no need for marriage until now:

Many upwardly-mobile liberal couples just can’t understand what’s the big deal about marriage. I’ve known many of them (and was one myself long ago). They are responsible, hard-working, law-abiding people, and they believe in working partnerships. Why go through a religious ceremony to sanctify it? They can do that by themselves. . . .

[So] let’s not overdo the necessity of sincerity. If it takes social pressure for individuals in America today to do the right thing, let’s congratulate them when they proceed with it, even though their motivation may be external.

Liberalism maintains that behavior must originate from within; freedom consists in the capacity to satisfy individual needs and desires. But the damaging results of that definition of liberty are everywhere around us, forcing any open-minded person to acknowledge the value of social constraints, especially those derived from religious doctrine.

A healthy society constrains the demands of the heart and the body with the commands of God and reason. This will always involve conflict and compromise. To require that resulting behaviors be ever sincere and straightforward is to press human beings toward a purity that belies their fallen nature. In the Ossoff case, from what I can see, a metaphorical shotgun marriage looks like the right outcome, a fulfillment of the commitment the candidate has shown to his girlfriend for so long.

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.