On Wednesday, the so-called legalization bill passed its preliminary reading in the Knesset. Supported by most of the governing coalition, but opposed by the prime minister, the bill would legalize many outposts built on privately owned Palestinian land and provide compensation for the land’s original owners. While the bill is very unlikely to pass, writes Evelyn Gordon, advancing it now, with a lame-duck president in the White House, is “asinine.” Furthermore, Gordon argues, the law would be detrimental to Israel on its own merits:

Most Israeli ministers—albeit not Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—appear to support a one-state solution, and ever since Donald Trump won [the American presidential election], they have been demanding major steps toward its implementation: unrestricted building in the settlements, legalizing illegal settlement outposts, and annexing roughly 60 percent of the West Bank [the portion of that territory known as Area C]. . . .

[E]ven in a fantasy world where nobody in Washington objected to Israel’s building anywhere in the West Bank, moving full tilt toward a one-state agenda right now would be irresponsible, because should the world become convinced that Israel is abandoning or precluding a two-state solution, pressure for an immediate one-state solution, with Palestinians given full voting rights, is liable to escalate rapidly. And Israel simply isn’t ready for a one-state solution right now.

First, even assuming the world would let Israel ignore Gaza and annex the West Bank only, Jews account for just 66 percent of all residents of Israel and the West Bank according to even the most optimistic calculations. Given how controversial those calculations are, betting the Jewish state’s future on their accuracy would be foolish. But even if they are accurate, that would still leave Israel with a 34-percent Arab minority. Combined with support from Israeli leftists, that’s enough to erase every vestige of Israel’s Jewish character through democratic means. . . .

[Another] final problem is diplomatic. I doubt Republicans would abandon Israel over this issue, but there’s every reason to think Democrats would, and power in Washington changes hands on a fairly regular basis. Thus, unless Israel finds a substitute for America’s diplomatic backing—and I don’t see any on the horizon right now—it can’t afford to alienate Democrats completely.

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.