Mohammed Allaan, a member of Palestinian Islamic Jihad, has been jailed by Israel since 2014, when he was arrested for the second time for involvement in terrorist activities. Although his recent hunger strike has made headlines in Israel and abroad, Gerald Steinberg explains that it was part of a well-coordinated effort to get him released:

The threats of large-scale violence in Israel and international condemnation if Allaan were to die [in custody] were used to pressure Israel to release him unconditionally. [The effectiveness of such a] strategy was demonstrated in the early 1980s, when ten IRA hunger-striking terrorists in British jails died, with major ramifications. To avoid a similar situation, Israel had previously freed a number of alleged terrorists in administrative detention. . . .

In this deadly political chess game, a number of Israeli and Palestinian non-governmental organizations (NGOs), claiming to promote moral agendas, have played a central role. The petition before the High Court of Justice, asking the judges to release Allaan, was brought by Adalah, an influential Israeli political advocacy NGO. Adalah was joined by Physicians for Human Rights-Israel, the Arab Association for Human Rights, Al-Mezan (Gaza-based), and other groups. These NGOs are among the leaders of campaigns demonizing Israel, and the Allaan hunger strike is another means to achieve this end. . . .

A survey of NGO websites, Facebook pages, and Twitter feeds shows the intense focus of these resources on the Allaan case, which they have presented as primarily involving the medical ethics of force-feeding and the legality of administrative detention . . . with no mention of Islamic Jihad terrorism. . . .

The successes that Allan and his NGO support group can now claim following the media campaign, the threats of violence, and his subsequent release guarantee the frequent [future] use of the hunger-strike strategy.

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.