On Monday, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the U.S. no longer held it a violation of international law for Jews to live or build houses on lands acquired by Israel during the Six-Day War. This opinion runs contrary to the stance of the Carter and Obama administrations, as well as that of most West European governments, but rests on a coherent and logical understanding of the law. Amnon Lord explains its significance:

[The American decision] is proof that standing tenaciously for years on solid and consistent legal ground ultimately ends in international recognition. If Israel had surrendered to the views of [its own] “new-wave” jurists, who created a propagandist and false presentation of the legal status of the territories in Judea, Samaria, and the Jordan Valley, even the most supportive [U.S.] administration . . . wouldn’t have lifted a finger on the matter. From this perspective, anyone who has argued and expounded on this legal and historical position over the years in American, international, and local forums deserves credit for the Trump administration’s diplomatic revolution.

What’s needed now is the establishment of an Israeli government capable of providing significance and substance to the new American policy. The declaration further enhances Donald Trump’s policy, which he has been unfurling for three years now, whereby, the 1967 lines no longer represent a baseline for a future peace deal.

This new policy does not negate or supersede the possibility of a deal with the Palestinians; but at the same time, it also doesn’t prohibit Israel from possibly imposing its sovereignty over these strategic territories, which are so crucial to its security, or over specific settlement areas themselves. Israel’s Supreme Court also recognizes the legality of these communities.

The imperative for the country [now] is a national-unity or right-wing government capable of using this diplomatic gift. And it is a gift that in many ways is more important than moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.

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.