In the Israeli press, there has been no small amount of handwringing over the fact that President Biden has not yet placed a phone call to Prime Minister Netanyahu—to the extent that the latter felt compelled to make statement yesterday about his confidence that relations with the Biden administration are already off to a good start. Lahav Harkov suggests that such concern is unnecessary:

The previous two presidents, Barack Obama and Donald Trump, gave Israel an inordinate amount of attention, in different ways. Obama, intent on putting “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel, pressured Israel to make concessions to the Palestinians, and then pursued a nuclear deal with Iran, . . . . Trump was much friendlier to Israel, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and facilitating the normalization of relations between Israel and four Arab states. But that embrace from a highly polarizing president . . . was, in some ways, a bear hug, the consequences of which Israel will have to deal with moving forward.

[President Biden] clearly doesn’t think becoming the umpteenth U.S. leader to negotiate peace between Israel and the Palestinians—and the pressure on Jerusalem that would inevitably come with it—is a top priority at the moment.

The mainstays of the U.S,-Israel relationship are still there, with CENTCOM Commander General Kenneth McKenzie visiting, indicating continued security cooperation between the countries. No one in power is threatening to scale any of that back.

Those who think the lack of phone call is indicative of some kind of crisis may want to consider whether it is in Israel’s interest always to be at the center of attention. . . . A little peace and quiet from Washington could do us good. America—or at least its leadership—is touting a return to normalcy. Israel might benefit from being treated like a normal American ally, as well.

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.