Recently Hamas approvingly quoted Germany’s Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel, who had compared Israel with apartheid-era South Africa. Gabriel, for his part, seems to get his information about the Jewish state from those committed to defaming it. The editors of the Jerusalem Post write:

Gabriel touted his hyper-critical attitude toward Israel during a panel discussion organized by—of all groups—the Kreuzberg Initiative against Anti-Semitism. The public event was held in Berlin in mid-December, as thousands of demonstrators—most of whom were migrants from Muslim countries—thronged the streets, burned Israeli flags, and denounced Donald Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. . . .

Gabriel reportedly [brought up] his [previous] harsh criticism of Israel during a 2012 visit to Israel that included a tour of Hebron. After the tour—which was likely organized by one of the many groups that use freedoms provided by Israel’s democracy to present a tendentious, pro-Palestinian account of the Israel-Palestinian conflict—Gabriel wrote on his Facebook page that Israel is an “apartheid regime” and advocated including Hamas in the “political process” in the Middle East. Gabriel later apologized after Jewish groups took him to task. . . .

In April of last year, Gabriel once again showed his partiality to Israel’s many detractors, when during another short visit to Israel he insisted on meeting with representatives of [the “human-rights” groups] B’Tselem and Breaking the Silence. The vast majority of Israelis view the political agendas of these two organizations as dangerous and overly sympathetic to a Palestinian population that has repeatedly chosen terrorism and violence over peace and negotiations. . . .

[Many serious] dangers . . . can result when men like Gabriel, leaders of liberal Western democracies, grant legitimacy to a slanted narrative of “the conflict.” Now, with Gabriel being enlisted by Hamas, we are given a concrete example of how progressives are exploited by terrorist organizations to advance their own totalitarian agendas. If Germany’s foreign minister insists on perpetuating the false claim of apartheid against Israel, can the German government object when thousands of migrants from the Middle East take to the streets of Berlin and call for Israel’s destruction?

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.