At an economic conference in the Bahraini capital of Manama taking place on June 25 and 26, the White House intends to roll out the first half of its much-anticipated plan for resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Palestinian officials have already announced that they will not attend. While it would be foolish to pin high hopes on the conference, writes Raphael Ahren, it would likewise be wrong to dismiss its significance:

Bahrain co-issued an official statement [with the U.S.], saying next month’s “Peace to Prosperity workshop” will focus on an “achievable vision and framework for a prosperous future for the Palestinian people and the region.” . . . [T]hat an Arab country, which has no formal ties with Israel and continues to pledge allegiance to the Palestinian cause, has agreed to put its name to the first part of the administration’s two-part peace plan is astonishing. . . .

Worth highlighting, too, is that Israel’s finance minister, Moshe Kahlon, is likely to be among the guests welcomed to this Arab capital. It’s not unprecedented for senior members of the Israeli cabinet to pay official visits to Arab countries. . . . But while [previous] ministerial visits were trailblazing, it bears noting that they took place in the context of events hosted by international organizations that may have punished [the respective hosts] had they excluded representatives of member states.

Kahlon’s expected participation in the Manama workshop would be of an entirely different nature. He would be welcomed in an Arab country not because its government would face sanctions otherwise, but with the explicit purpose of discussing the Trump administration’s peace efforts. . . . Bahrain’s willingness to host the “Peace to Prosperity” summit strongly indicates that the Arab world is more inclined to normalize ties with Israel than some may think. Even in the absence of the ultimate deal.

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.