On Tuesday, the European court of justice ruled that food items originating from the Gaza Strip or West Bank must be labeled as such, and that the labels must further specify if the items were produced in a place inhabited by Jews. Alan Baker notes that the policy in question “is intended to harm Israel and Israel only,” and is intended to bolster boycotts of the Jewish state:

The EU labeling policy is based on a unilateral EU premise that Israel’s settlements are contrary to international law. This premise runs counter to other relevant legal opinions as to the legitimacy of Israel’s settlement policy in accordance with the accepted international norms regarding the administration of territory. Additionally, and more importantly, the issue of Israel’s settlements is an agreed-upon negotiating issue between Israel and the PLO, pursuant to the Oslo Accords. Thus, the EU labeling directive is tantamount to interference in, and prejudgment of, an agreed-upon negotiating issue between Israel and the Palestinians.

The EU labeling requirement is [therefore] a political measure strengthening the already existing links between the EU and the predominantly European boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) campaign. It represents full identification of the EU and its member states with the aims of the BDS movement to undermine Israel and to weaken the relations between European countries and Israel.

The selective and discriminatory EU labeling policy . . . ignores the numerous situations in the world where states administering territories have transferred hundreds and thousands of their own citizens into [those] territories, such as Turkey in Northern Cyprus, Morocco in occupied Western Sahara, Russia in occupied Ukrainian territory, and the like. This is indicative of an acute double standard in EU policies, raising pertinent questions regarding the real motivation behind such policy.

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.