University departments of philosophy often exclude the Hebrew Bible from discussions of the history of ethics, treating it as belonging solely to the domain of religious or ancient Near Eastern studies. In his Ethics in Ancient Israel, John Barton, an Anglican priest and Oxford professor, seeks to return the Tanakh to its rightful place as a work of ethical profundity. James Nati sums up his approach:

Barton is particularly motivated by the desire to push back against the idea that the Hebrew Bible simply demands obedience to the deity. [As he puts it:] “There is an almost universal popular belief, supported by much technical biblical scholarship, that biblical morality is the parade example of a divine-command theory of ethics. . . . The Bible thus comes down very clearly on one side of the [question debated in the Plato’s Euthyphro]: what is good is so because God commands it. . . . One aim of this book is to contest this assumption.”

[Barton sets forth] seven ways in which the Hebrew Bible attests to an idea of a moral order that is distinct from positive legislation from the Deity, even if that legislation aligns with the moral order in some instances. . . . He acknowledges that the popular idea which he is combating—that the Hebrew Bible simply demands adherence to divine commands, and that these commands are often irrational—is present in a number of biblical texts. Chapter 5 [of the book] takes up these examples, and seeks to argue that, while they are certainly there, they are not as thoroughly positivistic or irrational as is often assumed.

[T]he book as a whole is a very impressive work of scholarship that takes aim at a widely held and overly simplistic view of ancient Israelite ethics as obedience to divine commands. . . . Perhaps most praiseworthy is the fact that running through it is an effort to combat characterizations of ancient Israelite ethics that have been used as fodder for anti-Semitism. This is an absolutely essential component of any treatment of thought in the Hebrew Bible, and especially, I would argue, for those of us who teach in divinity schools.

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.