There is no doubt that slandering Israel remains a major preoccupation of the United Nations—as evidenced by the recent General Assembly resolution condemning Jerusalem’s actions at the Gaza border while making no mention of Hamas. But Elliott Abrams sees signs that change is afoot:

The final resolution [regarding Gaza] passed 120 (yes) to 8 (no) with 45 abstentions. Who were the eight countries voting no? The United States and Israel, several Pacific island states, Togo, and Australia. Last year Australia’s government announced that it was through with unfair and unbalanced UN treatment of Israel and would henceforth vote against such resolutions in all parts of the UN system. And so it has done. . . .

In the General Assembly [debate], the United States introduced an amendment that inserted a condemnation of Hamas in the [proposed] resolution text. . . . Algeria moved to quash the American amendment, but, remarkably, the United States won that vote 78 to 59 (with 42 abstentions). That is an amazing event in the UN: 78 countries opposed the Arab position and voted on the U.S./Israeli side, and only 59 supported the Algerian [motion].

There was then a vote on whether to adopt the American amendment . . . : the amendment passed 62 (yes) to 58 (no), with 42 abstentions. In the UN, that is an astonishing result—a slim margin to be sure, but a win nevertheless. Because UN rules require a two-thirds majority, the amendment was not in the end adopted—but the voting pattern is far better than many past UN votes. And in this skirmish, all 28 EU countries voted with the United States. That’s the good news. . . .

Future progress will require more diplomatic work, by Israel and the United States. Additional votes can be changed, in Latin America, Africa, and perhaps Europe.

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.