One of the great unexpected Middle Eastern developments of this century has been the gradual warming of relations between Israel and several Arab states. But Daniel Pipes wonders if the thaw is really here to stay:

The decades of vitriolic anti-Zionist propaganda [in Arab countries] had a profound effect on the populations. If sophisticated leaders calculating costs and benefits concluded that confronting Israel was a bad idea, their subjects remained largely trapped in a state of frenzy. In part, this retained the old pan-Arab character while larding on a new Islamist venom for Jews.

Exhibit A is the recent presidential election in Tunisia. Tunisia stands out as both the least anti-Zionist Arab country of decades past and today the one with the most open and democratic system; therefore, its election has outsized importance as an indicator.

In October, to the surprise of most observers, the distinctly uncharismatic Kais Saied emerged as Tunisia’s new president. Pipes suggests that hatred of Israel might have been his winning card:

The Tunis-based [journalist] Lamine Ghanmi found that Saied’s popularity “was bolstered by his fiery stance against Israel.” [Saied has asserted] that Tunisia is “in a state of war” with the Jewish state and called normalization with it “a great treason.” Thousands celebrated his electoral victory by taking to the streets, raising the Palestinian flag, and calling for the destruction of Israel. Others agree with [Ghanmi’s] assessment.

Although a willingness to accept Israel has trickled down in the Gulf Cooperation Council states, this shift has not traveled much farther. So long as Sunni Arab elites see Israel as a useful, if discreet, ally against the real danger posed by Tehran, these anti-Zionist sentiments will be held in check. But when that commonality fades, old-fashioned Palestinian-style hatred of Israel could come roaring back, with miserable consequences.

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.