Those demanding that Israel immediately “end its occupation” of the West Bank routinely make their case in legal terms: the Jewish state’s presence outside the 1948 armistice lines is “illegal”; Palestinians have a “right” to their own state in the West Bank and Gaza; the rights of Palestinians are being violated daily. Ruth Gavison contends that this approach, in addition to misapplying the principles of international law, misconstrues a political issue as a legal issue. (Free registration may be required.)

According to [those who address the question in terms of rights], an agreement with the Palestinians isn’t based on painful concessions from both sides but on pressure on Israel to make it do what it must. . . . [This understanding] is based on the assumption that such a step will change the conditions that led to the war in 1967 [so that] Israel will no longer face military and diplomatic challenges that reject its right to exist as the national home of the Jewish people.

Translating the question of the occupation into the language of law and human rights conceals the political, security, and ideological aspects that are supposed to be decided in the political arena. This is how, in Israel, [opponents of current policies] have taken to legal wrangling whose goal is to remove Jewish residents from the places claimed to be illegal, or to exposure of Israeli soldiers’ [alleged] violations of the laws of war.

Accordingly, civil-society organizations depict their fight against the occupation as a fight for human rights or the rule of law. This has implications both in Israel and abroad. Countries aren’t supposed to intervene in political struggles in another country. But if there is a violation of human rights or democracy itself—[so-called] “international” values—the ban on intervention is weakened. And many Western countries rely on this distinction when they finance civil-society groups in foreign countries.

Adherence to this legalistic and human-rights discourse only convinces Israel’s Jews that they have no one to talk to and nothing to talk about because [such rhetoric] isn’t a genuine invitation to negotiations [that could lead to a variety of outcomes] but a demand that Israel take certain actions [unilaterally]. . . .

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.