To wrap up his four-year term as secretary of state—whose highlights include negotiating the disastrous Iran deal, brokering a series of failed ceasefires in Syria, and normalizing relations with Cuba for nothing in return—John Kerry yesterday took a much-publicized swipe at the Jewish state. Calling his speech “a long, meandering . . . exclamation point on a failed foreign policy,” the editors of National Review indict Kerry for arrogance, ignorance, and spitefulness:

[I]n the face of Palestinian violence and Palestinian dysfunction, the Obama administration vents its spleen at Israel, the only party that has proved its willingness to take meaningful risks for peace. Moreover, Kerry’s reasoning is nonsensical even in its own terms. In his speech, he took specific aim at recent settlement activity that he claims makes a two-state solution less viable. Yet the resolution the United States allowed to pass the UN Security Council declares all settlement activity unlawful, even those “settlements”—like the suburbs of Israel’s capital, Jerusalem—that would doubtless become part of Israel under any meaningful peace agreement.

The Obama administration was angry at far-flung settlements, so it cast Jewish control of the Western Wall into doubt? That makes no sense, except as an exercise in pure spite.

Kerry seemed to grow angry when he said that the status quo is “leading toward one state, or perpetual occupation,” but the status quo that he decries is an artifact of ongoing Palestinian terror campaigns, not Israeli settlements. Jews have just as much right to live in the disputed territories as members of any other ethnic group, and Kerry’s condemnation of all Israeli “settlements” echoes Palestinian desires to force Jews to leave the West Bank. . . .

The Obama administration loves to boast of its “values,” and today’s speech was no exception. Yet the “values” advanced in the administration’s recent actions are abhorrent. It has perverted international law, rewarded Palestinian violence, endorsed ethnic cleansing, and applied UN-created double standards that leave Israel as the most persecuted and most condemned state in UN history. . . .

The Obama administration is leaving office as it entered, arrogant and willfully ignorant, refusing to see the plain truth of the Middle East—that Israel cannot make peace with “partners” that long for its death.

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.