Since Israel’s creation, no member of the British royal family has paid it an official visit, although Queen Elizabeth’s husband, Prince Philip—whose mother is buried on the Mount of Olives—and Prince Charles have both come in an unofficial capacity. This summer, the House of Windsor will finally break with longstanding policy and send Prince William on a formal visit. The researchers of the Britain Israel Communications and Research Center (BICOM) ask what caused the change:

As Brexit approaches, the British government’s [new foreign policy] requires it to reach out to friends and allies outside Europe; the government views Israel as a key future trade partner, especially where technology and innovation are concerned. This motivation, coupled with the strong pro-Israel positions of many in the British government as well as the anomaly that the royal family has never visited Israel, most likely generated the idea that a visit to Israel, [including] the West Bank, as well as to [London’s] key ally Jordan, was an elegant solution to the long-running absence of a visit. Moreover, having visited Israel [along with] Jordan may subsequently make it easier for the royal family to arrange future visits to other key allies in the Middle East . . . if they so wish.

The first British monarch to come to the Holy Land was Richard I, who arrived with his army during the Third Crusade. There were also a few royal visits in the 19th century:

In 1862, Queen Victoria’s eldest son, Prince Albert Edward, then the twenty-year-old prince of Wales, who later became Edward VII, visited Jerusalem as part of a five-month tour of Egypt and the Ottoman empire. . . . [T]he prince arrived in Jaffa on March 30, before visiting Jerusalem accompanied by Turkish cavalry and staying in tents pitched between the Damascus gate and the Gate of St. Stephen’s (Lions’ Gate). He subsequently visited the Temple Mount, the Western Wall, and the Tomb of David, where the [Muslim] keepers of the site objected to opening the door as they felt it too holy for Christians to see it.

Before leaving Jerusalem on April 10, [the prince] was treated by the [local] pasha to a lunch [of] over 62 dishes. Prince Albert Edward also bathed in the Dead Sea and the River Jordan as well as visiting Hebron, Jericho—where he wrote that he experienced evening entertainment of 20 to 30 Arab women dancing in a “wild fantastic way”; Nablus—where he became the first Christian to visit the mosques; Solomon’s Pools—where according to his diary he unsuccessfully tried to shoot some birds; and the Sea of Galilee. According to the Israeli scholar Yehoshua Ben-Arieh, the trip set the standard for others to copy up to and after the World War I.

Yesterday, the beepers used by hundreds of Hizballah operatives were detonated. Noah Rothman puts this ingenious attack in the context of the overall war between Israel and the Iran-backed terrorist group:

[W]hile the disabling of an untold number of Hizballah operatives is remarkable, it’s also ominous. This week, the Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant told reporters that the hour is nearing when Israeli forces will have to confront Iran’s cat’s-paw in southern Lebanon directly, in order to return the tens of thousands of Israelis who fled their homes along Lebanon’s border under fire and have not yet been able to return. Today’s operation may be a prelude to the next phase of Israel’s defensive war, a dangerous one in which the IDF will face off against an enemy with tens of thousands of fighters and over 150,000 rockets and missiles trained on Israeli cities.

Seth Frantzman, meanwhile, focuses on the specific damage the pager bombings have likely done to Hizballah:

This will put the men in hospital for a period of time. Some of them can go back to serving Hizballah, but they will not have access to one of their hands. These will most likely be their dominant hand, meaning the hand they’d also use to hold the trigger of a rifle or push the button to launch a missile.

Hizballah has already lost around 450 fighters in its eleven-month confrontation with Israel. This is a significant loss for the group. While Hizballah can replace losses, it doesn’t have an endlessly deep [supply of recruits]. This is not only because it has to invest in training and security ahead of recruitment, but also because it draws its recruits from a narrow spectrum of Lebanese society.

The overall challenge for Hizballah is not just replacing wounded and dead fighters. The group will be challenged to . . . roll out some other way to communicate with its men. The use of pagers may seem archaic, but Hizballah apparently chose to use this system because it assumed the network could not be penetrated. . . . It will also now be concerned about the penetration of its operational security. When groups like Hizballah are in chaos, they are more vulnerable to making mistakes.