|
Trending Topics
|
Britain's False Equivalence on Israel, Iran and Hizbullah
(Jewish Chronicle-UK) Editorial - After Hizbullah bombed northern Israel, the IDF struck the group's headquarters in Beirut. Iran responded by launching missiles at the Jewish state, and the Israeli military then struck targets in Iran. UK Foreign Secretary Yvette Cooper responded, "Both sides must show restraint and de-escalate immediately." This call for de-escalation may appear balanced, but it obscures a fundamental reality: it was Iran that chose to escalate by launching missiles at Israeli population centers. Israel responded by targeting military and strategic sites. There has been remarkably little emphasis on the fact that Hizbullah initiated the conflict. Nor has sufficient attention been paid to the displaced Israeli civilians, the homes damaged or destroyed by Hizbullah attacks, and the prolonged disruption and insecurity imposed on northern Israel. For decades, Hizbullah has acted as Iran's most powerful regional proxy, exercising enormous influence over Lebanon's political and security institutions. By significantly weakening the Shia terror group, Israel has helped restore a degree of Lebanese sovereignty, enabling the government to enter into negotiations with Israel despite the opposition of Hizbullah and the Iranian regime. The persistent blurring of responsibility in official British statements is puzzling given that Iran's leadership is committed to Israel's destruction and has spent years building what it proudly describes as a regional "axis of resistance." This habit of false equivalence risks encouraging precisely the actors threatening the "peace and stability" the foreign secretary invokes. Britain's Gulf allies know who attacked their countries. They know that the principal threat to regional stability is not Israeli self-defense but Iranian expansionism. It is firmly in Britain's interests that Iran's ability to destabilize the region is diminished, that its nuclear ambitions are thwarted, and that Hizbullah's grip on Lebanon is broken or at least weakened. Britain should be clear-eyed and outspoken about who is driving this conflict and whose defeat would make both the Middle East and Britain safer.