In 2011, the U.S. ceased its funding for the UN Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), in response to the group’s recognition of a “state of Palestine.” In 2018 it withdrew from UNESCO completely. The White House is reportedly considering a reversal of both decisions, and urging Israel to follow suit. Alan Baker, Wade Ze’ev Gittleson, and Lea Bilke argue against doing so:

Rejoining UNESCO would be perceived to be an acknowledgment of Palestinian efforts to achieve statehood outside the framework of negotiations with Israel, [in violation of the Oslo Accords]. . . . Consequently, the United States and Israel, by rejoining the organization and thereby indirectly acknowledging a Palestinian state, [would] send the message to the Palestinians that they don’t have to fulfil their Oslo Accords obligation to negotiate with Israel to realize their ambitions, decreasing the likelihood of negotiations and consequently extending and exacerbating the Israel-Palestinian conflict.

UNESCO passed a total of 47 resolutions between 2009 and 2014, 46 of which were directed against Israel and only one against Syria. None of these resolutions made any reference to human-rights, educational, and cultural violations by the likes of North Korea, Iran, China, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba, Islamic State, or any of the other culturally destructive regimes in the world.

Consequently, rejoining UNESCO at this point would be considered to be sanctioning UNESCO’s own neglect of its functions and purposes, namely “the contribution to peace and security by promoting collaboration among the nations through education, science, and culture,” as set out in Article 1 of its Constitution.

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.