On Thursday, the new UN secretary-general, Antonio Guterres, nominated Salam Fayyad, former prime minister of the Palestinian Authority (PA), to be the United Nations envoy to Libya. Nikki Haley, America’s ambassador to the UN, nixed the appointment, provoking a storm of criticism. While acknowledging that Fayyad has a good track record from his time in the PA government, Benny Avni argues that Haley made the correct move:

Naming “Palestine” as Fayyad’s state of origin, [as Guterres’s nomination did], is crucial. Never before had a person from a country that is not a full United Nations member been named to such a high post. American law forbids, moreover, funding any international organization that recognizes “Palestine” as its full member.

That’s a context in which the American refusal to approve of the elevation of the Palestinian to a key UN job takes on a certain logic. American officials, as well as their Israeli counterparts, sensed that Guterres’s move was yet another step in the Palestinian Authority’s strategy of gaining world recognition through creeping UN acceptance. . . .

[T]he UN nomination was not about Mr. Fayyad, but about the claim to statehood that his nomination represents. . . . [A UN spokesman, commenting on Fayyad’s nomination], noted that “no Israeli and no Palestinian has served in a post of high responsibility at the United Nations. This is a situation that the secretary-general feels should be corrected.”

Yet there are those here who wonder about the logic of correcting Turtle Bay’s long-held bias against assigning top jobs to citizens of Israel, a member of the United Nations since 1949, by naming to a top post an individual from a non-member state. Trying to explain it by conflating these two as if they were one smacks of annulment of the UN’s opposition to a “one-state solution.” Doing all this without first getting the nod from America, or any other key government, is what is amateurish.

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.