As the clouds of war gather in the Middle East, the forces for peace must be strengthened

Editorial: The prime minister has rightly spoken while in New York of the importance of the rule of law

(Dave Brown)

The debate of the new session of the UN General Assembly in New York opens under the darkening skies of war. Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed paramilitary organisation that is embedded in Lebanese society and government, says it is not seeking to escalate the conflict with Israel. Equally, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, says he does not seek all-out war in Lebanon.

Yet escalation seems to be precisely what is happening. After a heavy exchange of strikes on Monday, a Hezbollah missile was fired at Tel Aviv on Wednesday for the first time in this conflict. It was intercepted and Israel responded with a new wave of strikes in Lebanon. Foreigners in Lebanon are being advised by their governments to leave while commercial flights are still operating – although Simon Calder, The Independent’s travel correspondent, reports that flights are booked up for several days ahead.

The United Kingdom is sending 700 troops to Cyprus in case an emergency evacuation is required and Sir Keir Starmer told the BBC on Wednesday morning: “We are essentially at a brink point and we have to come back from the brink.”

The prime minister is in New York, along with many heads of government for the UN General Assembly and has promised to deliver “responsible global leadership” in the conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine.

Like many Western leaders, Sir Keir enjoys solid support from domestic opinion for his forward position on Ukraine, while he is threading his way through a minefield on the issue of Israel’s war on two fronts. British public opinion, which was strongly supportive of Israel’s right to respond to the Hamas atrocity of 7 October last year, has grown increasingly uneasy about Mr Netanyahu’s conduct of the war.

Hence the British government, claiming a mandate for a new scrupulousness in the observance of international law, has imposed a limited embargo on the sale of some arms to Israel. As the UK is not a significant supplier of weapons to Israel, this is a largely symbolic gesture, but The Independent agrees that, while Israel has the right to defend its citizens, its allies have the duty to warn Mr Netanyahu that he is on the wrong course.

What most animates public opinion, in Britain as in most of Israel’s allies and especially in the United States, is the doubtful morality of seeking to “destroy” Hamas and Hezbollah at such a cost in civilian lives. Of course, respect for the rules of war is important, particularly in asymmetric conflict with an enemy deeply embedded in the civilian population. But the more important argument to make with those who have the ear of Mr Netanyahu and his ministers is that their tactics are counterproductive.

There is no prospect of eliminating either Hamas or Hezbollah, and the Israeli policy of decapitation is worse than futile: it makes peace ever harder to secure. The Netanyahu government has assassinated many leaders of both organisations, as well as those of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. But the evidence of past conflicts is that assassinated leaders tend to be replaced by more extreme commanders who are less amenable to negotiation, not least because they have not been worn down by years of fighting.

So Sir Keir is right to say “there is no military solution here”. He is right to “recommit to the UN, to internationalism, to the rule of law”, but he also needs to use what influence Britain possesses to try to make the case for restraint in Israel’s self-interest.

The problem is that Mr Netanyahu’s short-term self-interest lies in perpetuating the war and in postponing as long as possible any reckoning with the Israeli electorate, which blames him for allowing 7 October to happen in the first place, and for failing to secure the release of more of the hostages.

Inevitably, Britain’s influence on the Israeli government is small compared with the weight of the US relationship. It may be that the most important factor in deciding the course of the conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine is the outcome of the US election on 5 November.

But to the extent that British arguments hold sway in international forums such as the UN General Assembly, they should be deployed in trying to give all parties, in all the conflicts that threaten global stability, an interest in de-escalation.