Last week, the French foreign minister announced that if his country’s latest attempt to restart the peace process fails to yield results, France will unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state. Besides the fact that this declaration blames Israel preemptively for the failure of future negotiations, writes Alan Baker, unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state would also violate France’s own commitments under the Oslo Accords, of which it is a signatory:

The commitments, set down in [the Oslo] agreement, to negotiate the permanent status of the territories as well as other central issues such as Jerusalem, borders, settlements, and refugees, are solemn Palestinian and Israeli obligations which France, together with its EU partners, as well as the United States, Russia, Egypt, Jordan, and Norway are obligated to honor after placing their signatures on the agreement as witnesses. . . .

[I]n threatening to recognize a Palestinian state unilaterally and arbitrarily, France is clearly prejudging the issue of the permanent status of the territory. . . . In this context, France and its European colleagues cannot and should not act to undermine the Palestinian obligation set out in . . . the agreement, according to which no step will be taken to “change the status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip pending the outcome of the permanent-status negotiations.” . . .

In imposing its ultimatum and threat to recognize unilaterally a Palestinian state if France’s efforts to “make happen the solution of two states” should fail, France is, in effect, granting the Palestinian side the prerogative not to engage in any bona-fide negotiations with Israel, knowing that, [regardless of the outcome], France will unilaterally grant the Palestinians what they are demanding.

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.