In ancient times, the right of victors in war to the possessions of the vanquished was accepted almost universally, and the Torah for the most part permits plunder as well, although certain regulations apply. By contrast, current international law strictly forbids the seizure of anything but weapons and military equipment. Not only has halakhah moved in the same direction but, as Shlomo Brody explains, contemporary rabbis have been able to look to the Bible for support:

On a pragmatic level, concern with spoils can lead to military mistakes, as was painfully discovered by the Moabites who prematurely ceased fighting to focus on gathering booty, only to be surprised and defeated by the Israelites (2Kings 3:23). The kingdoms of Gog (Ezekiel 38:10-13) and Egypt (Exodus 15:9) are accused of unjustly going to war for the sake of booty, only to fall for their lust of money. . . .

Most [importantly], the first Jewish warrior, Abraham, refused to take “even a shoe strap” for himself when he defeated the four kingdoms [that had invaded Canaan and captured his nephew Lot], because he wanted his material success to be attributed to God [alone] (Genesis 14:22-23). Similarly, when the Jewish people defeats its enemies in the book of Esther, it was prohibited from taking booty, so as to highlight the purity of its intentions: defense and deterrence, not wealth or vengeance. Indeed, based on this sentiment, [the great late-19th-century sage] Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin asserted that the need to protect ourselves from corrupt motivations should lead us to shun all booty, even if the Torah may permit it.

[As for the contemporary IDF], Rabbis Haim Hirschensohn and Shaul Yisraeli have argued that halakhah demands that Israel respect the military conventions that it has officially affirmed. Accordingly, even if one believes that the Bible mandates seizing booty, Jewish law still requires one to refrain from such action under Israel’s international commitments. Violating such agreements would be a grave desecration of God’s name.

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.