For Hamas, placing military installations in close proximity to civilians is an essential tactic that has more than once saved the group’s leaders and officers from Israeli strikes. And when innocent lives are lost, the terrorist group can claim a propaganda victory, as news of the deaths, rather than the use of human shields, makes it to the front pages. But, write Orde Kittrie and Matthew Zweig, the U.S. has tools at its disposal to discourage this practice:

During the May 2021 conflict, Hamas reportedly used civilians as human shields to protect its military assets from Israeli counterstrikes. For example, Hamas reportedly located military tunnels under a school and adjacent to a kindergarten, a mosque, and a hospital. It reportedly placed weapons stockpiles in several different houses and apartment buildings, situated pivotal intelligence research and operations facilities in the same building as the Associated Press and other foreign journalists, and installed its military intelligence headquarters next to a kindergarten.

Some of America’s adversaries, including Islamic State and the Taliban, also rely on the use of human shields. U.S. law requires . . . the president to submit to Congress a list of foreign persons involved in the use of human shields by Hamas or Hizballah. It also requires the president to impose sanctions on all listed persons. [This 2018 law, known as] the Shields Act, required the president to submit his list not later than one year after the date of enactment, and annually thereafter. The law requires the list to cover all violations that happened after enactment.

Yet, two and a half years since the Shields Act became law, there has not been a single sanctions designation using the authorities provided for in this act. Despite considerable evidence of human-shields use by both Hamas and Hizballah, the Trump administration did not fulfill its statutory obligation, and the Biden administration has not yet done so.

Congress should also strengthen and expand the Shields Act. Currently, the law only mandates sanctions after a person involved in human-shields use has been listed in the required annual report. Rather than waiting for a yearly report, Congress could revise the law to require the administration to designate additional individuals, entities, or agencies of foreign states whenever they undertake proscribed activities.

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.