When fighting broke out between Israel and Hamas last month, some cynics rushed to declare that the peace agreements between Jerusalem and several Arab countries brokered by the Trump administration were failures. Some of these same cynics had previously put forward the bizarre claim that these diplomatic breakthroughs constitute an abandonment, or worse, of the Palestinians—as if the Palestinians had somehow benefitted from the Arab world’s perpetual state of war with, and refusal to recognize, Israel. But such commentary bespeaks only a misunderstanding of the Middle East, writes Ali al-Nuaimi, an Emirati diplomat who was involved in the recent negotiations with Israel:

The truth is, the [central] Middle East conflict isn’t between Israelis and Palestinians but between Israel and Iran. Ask yourself who benefits from this conflict? The Palestinian people’s rights and hopes have been hijacked by Hamas to serve an Iranian agenda. And it is against Iran’s extremism that we must continue to fight.

The people of the [Middle East] crave change, not least among them the Palestinian people, who are desperate for fresh leaders, leaders who can move beyond a rigid regime with an agenda that abuses the very people it rules.

For this to happen, we also have to fight the war of propaganda—one that the Israelis lost in this last round of fighting between Israel and Hamas. . . . One of the biggest errors, . . . which I saw repeated over and over in the media, was [speaking] about Gaza as if it’s occupied by the Israelis. It’s not: it’s occupied by Hamas. And the Palestinian people in Gaza are suffering because of Hamas, not the Israelis.

Twenty years ago, the Palestinian cause was priority number one in the region. Now, people in the Gulf see things differently. We still care. We still support the Palestinians. We believe in the two-state solution. But people in the Gulf no longer believe that this [result] should come at the expense of our national interests. Many activists responded to Hamas- and Islamic Jihad-influenced media and social-media posts to say, “we do care about the Palestinians—but we don’t care about these terrorist organizations.”

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.