“As a human being, as a Muslim, and as an Arab,” writes the Saudi journalist Hani al-Dahiri, “I am saddened by the situation” of the Palestinians. But rather than blame Israel for this situation, he points his finger squarely at Palestinian politicians, who have used their positions to enrich themselves with funds from Arab countries, Europe, and the U.S., and who realize that, by creating an independent state, they would lose their claim on foreign largesse. Dahiri adds:

These politicians . . . sabotaged negotiations and rejected all peace initiatives, whether those presented by the Israeli side or by other international parties. The Palestinian politicians did this at the expense of their cause and their people so as to gain from the situation [and to] guarantee their survival with donations pouring from all sides—especially from Arab and Islamic countries—into their treasuries and [their private] accounts in European banks.

[T]he courageous Emirati step to normalize relations with Israel . . . delivered an explicit message to Palestinian political leaders: “The time has come for you to confront those you have been deceiving.” [Moreover], it is evident that . . . other Arab countries will catch up with the United Arab Emirates.

Dahiri goes on to compare the Palestinian issue to the “Andalusian issue”—that is, the Arab claim to the lands in southern Spain that were conquered by Christian Castille in the 13th century. In other words, while he believes the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank or Gaza may be possible or desirable, he sees Arab claims to Jaffa or the Galilee as just as “dead” as those to Seville and Grenada. As a devout Muslim, he would like one day to pray at the al-Aqsa mosque, but understands that normalization with Israel, not conquest, will make that possible.

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.