Despite U.S. pressure to end the practice, the Palestinian Authority (PA) pays stipends to Palestinians in Israeli jails as well as to the families of “martyrs” who died committing terrorist acts. Jerusalem, however, continues to seek loopholes to protect Palestinian banks from terrorism-related sanctions. Nitsana Darshan-Leitner writes:

In 2015, [Israel’s] Bank Hapoalim and Discount Bank informed the Finance Ministry that they were severing their business ties with Palestinian banks that transfer PA payments to terrorists, for fear of being prosecuted under Israel’s counter-terror laws.

The decision was not made in a void: the same year saw a U.S. federal court order the PA to pay $655 million in damages to victims of terrorism. The ruling was partially based on the financial assistance Ramallah affords terrorists and its monthly payments to security prisoners jailed in Israel. Soon afterward, a verdict was handed down against the Arab Bank for financing terrorism, also in a federal court in the United States, which concluded in a $1 billion settlement in favor of the victims.

Israel’s response to the local banks’ decision was to force its financial institutions to keep up the practice, i.e., to fund terrorism. . . . After victims of terrorism appealed to the High Court of Justice against the decision, the state exempted commercial banks from providing services to Palestinian banks. But Israel . . . recently announced that it will establish a new mechanism, in the form of an independent company that would provide financial services to Palestinian banks. In doing so, the state will, in effect, allow and endorse the transfer of payments from Palestinian banks to Palestinian prisoners and the families of terrorists.

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.