In the past weeks, Palestinian leaders from both Fatah and Hamas have been inciting their people to violence with claims that Israel is planning to change the “status quo” on the Temple Mount. By this they mean the longstanding policy that gives administrative control of the area to Muslim religious authorities, allows unrestricted access to Muslims, and restricts Jewish access. But, argues Nadav Shragai, the “status quo” is no status quo at all. The areas designated for Muslim prayer have expanded, and Jews, long forbidden from praying there, are now sharply curtailed even from visiting. At the heart of the problem is Israel’s reluctance to enforce its laws:

Amid ongoing [Muslim] damage to antiquities, blatant violations of the laws on planning, construction, and antiquities on the Mount, and repeated appeals to Israel’s supreme court by different [Jewish] groups, as well as political activity by members of Knesset and other public figures, constant tension has arisen between the Muslim religious authorities and the state of Israel concerning the enforcement of Israeli law on the Temple Mount.

In response, the state has entrusted the attorney general and a special ministerial committee to decide on issues related to law enforcement in the compound. The ministerial committee has not convened for many years, and was reactivated only a few years ago. The attorney general is very cautious about applying Israeli law to the Temple Mount and sometimes has even refrained from doing so, preferring to deal with this issue through unofficial dialogue with the Muslims via the Israel police. The police, for their part, have often preferred to keep things quiet on the Temple Mount even if the “price” entails compromising the rule of law, damage to antiquities, or violating planning and construction laws.

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.