A group of diplomats meets in the French capital today to propose a revival of the Israel-Palestinian peace process; conspicuously excluded are representatives either of Israel or of the Palestinians. While less than sanguine about the results, Eran Lerman explains why Jerusalem has kept its objections mellow:

For many reasons, most notably the pressure exerted by a large and vocal Muslim minority, French leaders have shown themselves ever more eager to endorse schemes in support of Palestinian demands. . . . [The current] drive to impose “parameters” is inimical to Israeli interests.

[Nonetheless], it is necessary to take a broader look at regional dynamics and at French policy responses, which tend to align closely with Israeli positions on the issue that truly matters: the need to face up to the threat posed by radical Islamist totalitarianism.

On more than one occasion, French positions and actions on this subject have been more reassuring from an Israeli point of view than those of [Israel’s] American ally. For example, France served as the hardline anchor of the P5+1 [during the nuclear negotiations with Iran]. . . .

In terms of action against Islamist terror groups, French forces have done more than most, including a dramatic campaign in Mali. Equally important is the French reluctance to buy into the illusion that the Muslim Brotherhood could be a stabilizing partner, as well as the ongoing relationship between France and the current regime in Egypt.

It is against this background that Israeli leadership has taken a cautious line in response to the French peace initiative. Israel did make the point repeatedly that the French initiative would prove counterproductive, insofar as it would move Palestinian leadership even farther away from compromise at the negotiating table. But the point was not made aggressively, and French motives and friendship with Israel were never subject to question. The tempered Israeli response reflects, above all, the importance of broader regional imperatives in Israel’s current diplomatic calculations.

The same applies to Egypt, which on May 28 led the Arab League in endorsing the French initiative. From an Israeli perspective, there is little in recent history to commend Egyptian intervention in the Palestinian negotiations. . . . However, times change.

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.