The end of World War I coincided with the defeat of the Ottoman empire by France and Britain, which in turn led to the empire’s dismemberment in 1920 and formal dissolution in 1922. In an interview with Spiked, Eugene Rogan—recently the author of The Fall of the Ottomans—comments on the empire’s role in the war and the errors made by the Western powers in overseeing its demise. For instance, the British, encouraged by T.E. Lawrence, decided to support the rulers of Mecca in revolting against the sultan, hoping that this would spark a region-wide Arab revolt:

Their mistake, of course, was to assume that Muslims behave in a collectively radical way. It is an assumption Westerners often make about Islam. And it is wrong. And it is part of what also drove the Ottomans’ German allies to push the sultan to call for jihad [against the Allies], because they also believed Muslims would respond in a collective way, and it explains why Britain overreacted, [fearing its Muslim subjects in India would be provoked to revolt]. The irony of course is that it left British war planners responding more actively to the call for jihad than did global Muslims. . . .

As for the carving up the Middle East by France and Britain in the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement and the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, Rogan comments:

I think the past century has made sovereign reality out of the borders imposed by the European imperial powers. And while I wouldn’t want to make them sacrosanct, I’m very suspicious of attempts by analysts in Europe or America to redraw the boundaries. I think we should be humble. The experience of Westerners drawing boundaries has not been successful. It hasn’t been a happy experience for the people of the region. They have been enduring boundaries, but they have fostered enduring conflicts.

So the way I would put it is that any changes to Middle Eastern borders should come only as exercises in self-determination. . . . And I think the real issue [is]: can overturning the post-World War I boundaries be done in such a way that it doesn’t provide the fault lines for new conflicts to wrack the Middle East? My view is that the borders more or less as they stand now will survive, but, with the emergence of a new age of statehood in a post-Arab Spring Middle East, a lot of the regionalisms will only be satisfied by a more federal system.

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.