On Saturday, the Australian government formally recognized “West Jerusalem” as Israel’s capital while at the same time clarifying that it has no intention of moving its embassy there from Tel Aviv. In his speech announcing the new policy, Prime Minister Scott Morrison also acknowledged “the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a future state with its capital in East Jerusalem.” Yaakov Ahimeir expresses his “reserved appreciation” for this ambivalent gesture:

Australia has [effectively] decided, even before negotiations with the Palestinians, that so-called “East Jerusalem” will be the capital of a Palestinian state, if one is established. This is a unilateral, premature determination, which should have been withheld until the sides properly negotiate the matter. . . .

If the Australian government recognizes only half of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, will Israel acknowledge this gesture, which predetermines the repartitioning of Jerusalem? I hope Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is appropriately questioning the move through the proper channels. The Netanyahu government should not accept a “half-recognition” of this sort. On the matter of Jerusalem . . . Israel’s government should insist on the united-city principle, under one sovereign country and beholden to one law enforced equally in both parts of the city. . . .

Morrison’s declaration has already reverberated near and far: . . . Indonesia and Malaysia will certainly scale back relations with Australia, the regional power. [Israelis] should express our reserved appreciation for the Australian gesture, but we also wish that it and many other countries one day recognize all of Jerusalem and move their embassies there.

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.