Read the daily news to learn English

New Zealand ‘comfort women’ statue could jeopardise diplomatic relations, Japan says

Diplomatic relations between Japan and New Zealand could be jeopardised if a statue symbolising the thousands of women Japan forced into sexual slavery before and during the second world war is erected in an Auckland garden, the Japanese embassy has warned. The bronze statue depicts a seated girl next to an empty chair and was given to New Zealand by the Korean Council for Justice and Remembrance, a non-government organisation, to commemorate survivors of wartime sexual violence. If local authorities approve the proposal at a meeting on 28 April, it will be installed in the Korean cultural garden at Barry’s Point reserve in Auckland. Some historians say as many as 200,000 women – mostly from Korea, but also China, south-east Asian, as well as a small number from Japan and Europe – were forced or tricked into working in military brothels between 1932 and 1945. They were euphemistically referred to as “comfort women” – a term Japan continues to use, despite survivors having taken issue with the label. The women were forced to have sex with Japanese soldiers in frontline, makeshift brothels. According to testimony from surviving women, they were forced to have sex with 10 to 30 men a day in dimly lit rooms furnished only with beds. Condoms were washed and reused, and offered little protection against sexually transmitted diseases. Medical examinations were infrequent, and many women became addicted to the mercury 606 used to treat syphilis. Forced abortions were commonplace. In a submission to Auckland council, the Japanese ambassador, Makoto Osawa, said “needlessly stirring up interest” in the issue could become a burden not only for Japan and South Korea’s cooperation but for Japan-New Zealand relations. Osawa argued the government’s funding of water and electricity for the development of the garden in 2015 could “give the impression that the New Zealand government is also supporting the installation”, were it erected. A spokesperson from the Japanese embassy, who did not wish to be named, told the Guardian the statue would create division and conflict within Japanese and Korean communities and could result in Japanese cities cutting ties with New Zealand cities. The relationship between Japan and South Korea has become strained since the first survivor went public with her story in the early 1990s. The first “peace statue” honouring the women was erected in Seoul in 2011. Since then dozens more have been erected overseas, prompting Japan to call for their removal. In 2018, Osaka ended its 60-year “sister city” relationship with San Francisco after the city agreed to recognise a similar statue – erected by a private group in San Francisco’s Chinatown district – as public property. In 2020, Japan reacted angrily to statues in South Korea that appeared to depict the former Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, prostrating himself before a young woman. In 2025, a peace statue was removed from Berlin, after a years-long dispute over its presence. Japan insists that the “comfort women” issue was settled “finally and irreversibly” by a 2015 agreement reached by Abe – who agreed to provide 1 billion yen (US$9m) in “humanitarian” funds to a foundation set up to support the survivors – and then-South Korean president Park Geun-hye, who agreed not to raise the issue in international forums. Park’s liberal successor, Moon Jae-in, effectively dissolved the fund in 2018, saying it did not take into account the feelings of survivors and the South Korean public. Successive Japanese administrations have refused to provide official recompense, insisting that all compensation claims were settled under a 1965 bilateral peace treaty. Japan had no intention of denying or underestimating the experiences of the women, its embassy in New Zealand said, but it believed the statue was part of an “anti-Japan” movement led by a group of Korean people who wanted to make the issue “more sensational”. “This statue actually has brought division and conflict to the community in [other] countries, instead of reconciliation between Japanese people and the Korean people.” The Guardian contacted the Korean embassy and the office of New Zealand’s minister of foreign affairs for comment. The proposal for Auckland’s statue received 672 submissions, with 51% of individuals strongly opposing it, and 13 out of 21 organisations also against it, according to Auckland council. New Zealand-based Japanese submitters accounted for 36% of submitters while 34% were Korean. Many supporters believed the statue would serve as an appropriate way to highlight sexual violence, while those opposing it felt it would be too politically charged. The Aotearoa New Zealand Statue of Peace committee – a group working with the Korean Garden Trust to install the statue – told the Guardian the project was about “acknowledging the violence inflicted on these girls and young women” and remembering the humanity of all survivors. Rebekah Jaung, the chairperson, said it was shocking that Japan “would so blatantly try to silence a monument honouring women on the other side of the world”. “Every one of the girls and women who were taken, and their families, have their own heartbreaking story and many of the survivors also have legacies of reclaiming their power through activism,” Jaung said. “The statue is a small way to unite and share their stories.” Additional reporting by Justin McCurry in Tokyo

Middle East crisis live: Iran war ceasefire does not cover Lebanon, Netanyahu says; Hezbollah launches rockets at Israel

Iran’s Revolutionary Guard (IRGC), in a statement carried by Iran’s state-run IRNA news agency, has denied launching attacks on Gulf states on Thursday, after Kuwait accused Tehran and its proxies of continuing strikes despite the ceasefire. “If these reports published by the media are true, without a doubt it is the work of the Zionist enemy or America,” the IRGC said.

Ukraine war briefing: First official ceasefire agreed after Zelenskyy push succeeds

Ukraine and Russia appeared to be on the brink of what could be their first official theatre-wide ceasefire since the February 2022 full-scale invasion after Vladimir Putin acquiesced to concerted offers by Volodymyr Zelenskyy of a pause in hostilities to mark Orthodox Easter, which is observed this weekend. The 32-hour ceasefire would start on Saturday afternoon. Zelenskyy responded early on Friday: “Ukraine has repeatedly stated that we are ready for reciprocal steps. We proposed a ceasefire during the Easter holiday this year and will act accordingly … People need an Easter without threats and a real move towards peace, and Russia has a chance not to return to attacks even after Easter.” The Kremlin attempted to portray the initiative as its own: “We assume that the Ukrainian side will follow the example of the Russian Federation,” said a statement. “Orders have been issued for this period to cease hostilities in all directions.” Russia left itself an opening, though, for continuing armed action: “Troops are to be prepared to counter any possible provocations by the enemy, as well as any aggressive actions,” said the Kremlin statement. Previously in the full-scale war there have only been unofficial, ill-defined and patchily observed truces; or localised halts to allow for surrenders, the exchange of prisoners, handing over the dead or letting civilians flee the frontline. There was a limited “energy truce” declared in March 2025 that was supposed to halt strikes on oil, gas and electrical facilities as well as sea targets. Moscow – while rejecting numerous previous ceasefire initiatives that were accepted by Ukraine – has also tried to unilaterally declare ceasefires, for example to allow Russia to celebrate the 80th anniversary of Soviet victory in the second world war. Considering the Trump administration’s repeated and lengthy courting of Putin to no avail over the past year, the Easter truce appeared to come about with minimal US involvement as the US president and his officials remained preoccupied with the Iran war and their own tenuous ceasefire. Zelenskyy did say in recent days that he had transmitted his truce offers to Russia via the US. Reuters said that according to its sources, Putin’s special envoy Kirill Dmitriev was in the US as of Thursday. Putin may be looking for a reprieve as successful strikes by the Ukrainians have dealt a heavy blow to Russia’s oil export industry, which earns revenue for the war; while Ukraine itself has been struggling with the impact of Russian strikes on its civilian energy grid. Russia’s federal security service (FSB) said on Thursday that a former freelancer for Radio Free Europe had been detained in the city of Chita for treason, the Russian Tass news agency reported. The FSB said the man, whose name was not disclosed, was accused of committing treason by cooperating with Ukraine. In Moscow the independent newspaper Novaya Gazeta said masked security service agents searched its offices on Thursday and barred its lawyers from entering. State news agency RIA quoted law enforcement officials as saying the search was linked to an investigation into the illegal use of personal data. Britain and allies including Norway sent warships to prevent any attacks on undersea cables and pipelines as Russian submarines prowled around them earlier this year, according to the UK defence minister, John Healey. Britain accused Russia of conducting a covert operation in the High North maritime region, home to key shipping routes and critical infrastructure such as undersea cables. “To President Putin, I say we see you. We see your activity over our cables and our pipelines, and you should know that any attempt to damage them will not be tolerated and will have serious consequences,” Healey said. Russia’s embassy in London said Healey’s statement was “impossible to either believe or verify … Russia does not threaten undersea infrastructure, which is of critical importance to the UK. Nor do we employ aggressive rhetoric in this regard.”

Netanyahu says there is no ceasefire in Lebanon as Israel launches fresh strikes

Benjamin Netanyahu has said there is “no ceasefire in Lebanon” and Israel would continue “to strike Hezbollah with full force” as the country’s military launched fresh strikes. The Israeli prime minister’s remarks and latest attacks on what the IDF called “Hezbollah launch sites” came shortly after Donald Trump said he had asked Netanyahu to be more “low-key” in Lebanon. Despite the latest bombardment, Netanyahu said he had instructed his government to “open direct negotiations with Lebanon as soon as possible”. He said the talks should focus on the disarmament of Hezbollah and the establishment of “peace relations” with Lebanon. The Lebanese government said a ceasefire must be agreed before any talks could begin. In a written message, Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, said the Islamic republic did not want war with the US and Israel, but would protect its rights as a nation, state television reported on Thursday. “We did not seek war and we do not want it,” he said. “But we will not renounce our legitimate rights under any circumstances, and in this respect, we consider the entire resistance front as a whole,” he added, in an apparent reference to Lebanon. More than 300 people were killed by Israeli bombing in the 24 hours after the announcement of a ceasefire in the Iran war on Tuesday night. The bombardment, ostensibly aimed at Hezbollah targets, included strikes with heavy munitions on densely populated areas, which drew outrage from the International Committee of the Red Cross and other international humanitarian organisations. The ferocious attack on Lebanon threatened to derail hopes of a negotiated end to the war in Iran, which began with a US-Israeli attack on 28 February. Despite claims by the US president, Donald Trump, that the Pakistani-brokered ceasefire had marked significant progress towards bringing a durable peace to the Middle East, the truce looked in danger of collapsing on its first day. Iran warned that, in response to the Israeli attacks after the ceasefire, it would once more close the strait of Hormuz, the economically critical waterway it had agreed to open for the two-week duration of the ceasefire. The country’s president, Masoud Pezeshkian, said negotiations were “meaningless” as long as Israel continued to bomb Lebanon, placing in doubt US-Iranian talks in Pakistan scheduled for Saturday. Pezeshkian vowed Iran would not abandon the Lebanese people. According to Iran’s deputy foreign minister, Saeed Khatibzadeh, Iran had been held back from responding forcefully to Israel’s escalation in Lebanon by Pakistani intervention urging restraint in the interests of a broader peace agreement. Pakistan’s prime minister, Shehbaz Sharif, condemned Israel’s “ongoing aggression against Lebanon”. Netanyahu had insisted Lebanon was not included in the Tuesday night ceasefire agreed by Donald Trump, and vowed the Israeli military would continue to strike Hezbollah targets “wherever necessary”. The Israeli prime minister said his forces had killed the secretary of Hezbollah’s leader, Naim Qassem. Trump himself backed Netanyahu’s version, telling the public broadcaster PBS that Lebanon was “not included in the deal” because of Hezbollah’s role. He referred to the conflict in Lebanon as a “separate skirmish” from the Iranian war and added: “That’ll get taken care of, too. It’s all right.” CNN reported that Netanyahu’s announcement of peace talks with Lebanon had come at the urging of the US president, who is keen to extricate the US from a war that he was persuaded to join by Netanyahu, according to multiple accounts of the lead-up to the conflict. The US vice-president, JD Vance, assigned to lead the US delegation to peace talks in Pakistan, suggested there had been a “legitimate misunderstanding” on the geographic reach of the ceasefire deal. Pakistan, which accelerated its mediation efforts after Trump threatened a civilisation-ending onslaught, has said Lebanon had been part of the agreement. Robert Malley, a former American envoy who led earlier US-Iranian negotiations, said: “I would trust the Pakistani mediator that Lebanon was included. They put out a statement that it was included and we did not hear any American correct the Pakistani version for many hours. “It looks like a case of the US reneging and giving the Israeli prime minister [permission] to go ahead [with bombing] for another 24 hours before they are ‘restrained’”. Malley said the best-case scenario for peace talks in Pakistan was that the region was returned to the status quo before the US-Israeli attacks began on 28 February, with the strait of Hormuz open, and options for limiting Iran’s nuclear programme on the table along with some form of financial compensation for Tehran. Authorities in Islamabad began implementing strict security measures in anticipation of the arrival of delegations for talks, expected to begin on Saturday. As the future of the ceasefire looked in peril, Trump issued his latest ultimatum on social media, vowing a return to US attacks (as he put it, the “Shootin’ Starts”) if Iran failed to comply with “the real agreement”. He made clear that Tehran had to reopen the strait of Hormuz fully to international shipping, and that it should have “no nuclear weapons”. He did not mention Lebanon. US allies have insisted the ceasefire should be comprehensive. A joint statement by the UK, EU countries, Canada and Japan called on “all sides to implement the ceasefire, including in Lebanon”, where Israel is seeking to destroy the Iranian-backed Hezbollah movement. Kaja Kallas, the EU foreign policy chief, said on Thursday: “Hezbollah dragged Lebanon into the war, but Israel’s right to defend itself does not justify inflicting such massive destruction. Israeli strikes killed hundreds last night, making it hard to argue that such heavy-handed actions fall within self-defence.” France’s foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, condemned the Israeli strikes as “unacceptable” and his British counterpart, Yvette Cooper, described them as “deeply damaging”, adding that failure to include Lebanon in the ceasefire would “destabilise the whole region”. A Downing Street spokesperson said Keir Starmer spoke to Trump on Thursday about the “next stage of finding a resolution” for reopening the strait of Hormuz. “The prime minister set out his discussions with Gulf leaders and military planners in the region on the need to restore freedom of navigation in the strait of Hormuz, as well as the UK’s efforts to convene partners to agree a viable plan. “They agreed that now there is a ceasefire in place and agreement to open the strait, we are at the next stage of finding a resolution.” Diplomatic efforts worldwide have focused on reopening the strait of Hormuz, the gateway to a fifth of the global flow of oil and liquefied natural gas. Only 11 ships – four Iranian, four Greek, one Chinese, one Omani and one unknown – were allowed to pass through the strait in the 24 hours after the ceasefire, less than a tenth of the prewar flow. About 1,400 ships remain anchored in the Gulf, trapped first by the war then the uncertainty that has accompanied the vague and shaky truce. After an initial plunge in the global oil price after the announcement of the ceasefire, it began to creep up again towards $100 a barrel on Thursday.

MEPs raise alarm about possible Russian meddling in Hungary elections

The European Commission is being urged to investigate whether Hungary’s elections are being undermined by Russian manipulation, intimidation of journalists and voter coercion by the ruling party. Three days before decisive parliamentary elections that threaten the 16-year grip on power of the prime minister, Viktor Orbán, a group of MEPs have written to the European Commission president, Ursula von der Leyen, and the commissioner responsible for the rule of law, Michael McGrath, calling for action. The cross-party group want an urgent assessment “before and immediately after” polling day on whether the conditions for free and fair competition are being undermined by disinformation, foreign manipulation, state-resource misuse, intimidation of journalists and unlawful interference with opposition actors. The appeal came as the European Commission demanded an urgent explanation from Budapest over a leaked recording that appeared to show a further instance of the Hungarian foreign minister covertly helping his Russian counterpart. In their letter, MEPs cited a report by the independent media outlet VSquare that the Kremlin has dispatched a team to manipulate Hungary’s elections. The operation was reported to be overseen by Sergei Kiriyenko, the first deputy chief of staff to the Russian president, Vladimir Putin. Kiriyenko was alleged to have orchestrated a similar campaign in Moldova, where a massive vote-buying operation and troll farms were reported to have targeted the pro-EU president, Maia Sandu. The journalist who wrote the report, Szabolcs Panyi, was subsequently accused by the Hungarian authorities of spying for Ukraine, and had been “targeted in a state-led intimidation of unprecedented severity”, the MEPs wrote. The group also raised concerns over “credible allegations” of unauthorised attempts to access the opposition party’s IT systems, including by state security forces. They flagged well-documented reports of vote-buying and intimidation by the ruling Fidesz party, warning of a serious risk of voter coercion. “The union cannot credibly defend democracy externally while failing to react when the integrity of elections inside the union itself is placed under such serious strain,” they said. The letter was sent as the commission demanded an urgent explanation from Hungary after another leaked phone call between the foreign minister, Péter Szijjártó, and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, reignited concerns over Budapest’s relationship with the Kremlin. In leaked recordings obtained by a consortium of investigative reporters, Szijjártó appeared to offer to send Lavrov a document about Ukraine’s EU accession. “I will send it to you. It’s not a problem,” Szijjártó reportedly said, after Lavrov said that Moscow was trying to get a document about the role of minority languages in Ukraine’s EU accession talks. Responding to the report, the French foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, said it was “a betrayal of the solidarity” required between EU countries. Poland’s prime minister, Donald Tusk, said the recording was “really beyond shocking”. On Thursday the commission’s chief spokesperson, Paula Pinho, said the recording raised “the alarming possibility of a member state coordinating with Russia, thus actively working against the security and the interests of the EU”. She told reporters it was for “the member state’s government in question to explain itself as a matter of urgency” and that the president [von der Leyen] would raise the issue at leaders’ level. Speaking before that statement, Tineke Strik, the Dutch Green MEP who leads the European parliament’s work on democratic standards in Hungary, said the commission had been “too hesitant” in dealing with Budapest. The commission, she said, was “very afraid” of being accused of interfering in Hungary’s elections. She said Orbán was “using the EU anyhow in his attacks”, a reference to the government’s billboard campaign targeting European leaders, including von der Leyen and relentless anti-EU rhetoric from Orbán and his ministers. The commission, Strik said, could be more outspoken to protect the interests of Hungarian citizens. “So far, they don’t do it. I understand their reasons, but they reason too much on the basis of a normal democratic process. And that’s the point that I make to them: we are not in a normal situation.”

Maybe humanists and Christians are not so different | Letters

I read Andrew Copson’s letter with interest (There is no revival of Christianity in Britain, 5 April). But he implies a dichotomy that is questionable, and also that humanists and Christians have little or nothing in common. He writes “the search for meaning is not found in dogma, but in the humanist values of reason, kindness and personal responsibility”. But that is what most, if not all, people who say they are Christian also believe. The last part of the sentence is at the heart of all Christ’s teaching. Another point is that many humanists are very good at that part. And indeed many of them are far more Christ-ian than many Christians are. I find myself encouraged by data about the opinions and beliefs of the 16- to 34-year-olds in Britain. They seem to be supportive of everything that Jesus taught in his Sermon on the Mount. Whether they say they are religious or not doesn’t matter at all. Graham Mytton Coldharbour, Surrey • Andrew Copson would do well to ask how many of the six in 10 young people identifying as non‑religious are regularly attending Humanist UK meetings. Or, for that matter, how the humanists arrived at the values of reason, kindness and personal responsibility. They, like the universe, did not appear unbidden from a vacuum. Sam Morris Cambridge • I was saddened to read Andrew Copson’s frustration regarding the treatment of “the non-religious as a demographic absence”. Certainly I, and the people I rub shoulders with, do not behave like this. An ordinary Anglican Christian, with a graduate diploma in theology, ministry and mission, my gentle, deep and inclusive faith is not, as he suggests, and understandably dislikes, a way of life based on “dogma”. Rather, I share the values he stands for and by – which are equally central to a traditional Church of England understanding of Christianity. I’m hopeful we would find more common ground than he realises if we sat down to talk together. I also already regard the community he belongs to as of “equal standing in the public square”, for ethical purposes – and I trust he reciprocates my respect. Rosemary Livingstone Biscoitos, Azores, Portugal • Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.

Nato ‘very disappointing’, says Trump, in fresh attack ahead of Rutte speech – as it happened

… and on that note, it’s a wrap for today! US president Donald Trump has doubled down on his criticism of Nato saying it was “very disappointing” in another critical social media post on the alliance, just a day after meeting with Nato’s secretary general Mark Rutte (15:13). Rutte is about to deliver a speech in Washington this afternoon, with further live coverage over on the Middle East blog. But Trump’s criticisms prompted mixed reactions across Europe, with German chancellor Friedrich Merz warning against “a split in Nato” and offering help with securing the strait of Hormuz (16:28). But Czech president Petr Pavel warned that Donald Trump’s recent comments questioning the role of Nato have damaged the alliance’s credibility more than anything the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has done in several years (13:33). Separately, The European Commission has demanded an urgent explanation from Hungary after another leaked phone call between foreign minister Péter Szijjártó and his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, reignited concerns over Budapest’s relationship with the Kremlin (11:08, 12:55). The French foreign minister, Jean-Noël Barrot, accused Hungary of “betrayal of the solidarity required between countries of the European Union” (11:08). The controversy comes just three days before the key parliamentary election in Hungary, with polls suggesting the opposition Tisza party could have a chance of ousting Viktor Orbán after 16 years in power (14:25, 15:54). On that note, hopefully I will see you from Budapest tomorrow as we enter the final days of the Hungarian campaign ahead of the big vote on Sunday and will be on the ground to bring you the latest. If you have any tips, comments or suggestions, email me at jakub.krupa@theguardian.com. I am also on Bluesky at @jakubkrupa.bsky.social and on X at @jakubkrupa.

Did Israel attack Lebanon to spoil Iran war ceasefire?

What was the point of Israel’s surprise mass strikes on Lebanon that killed more than 300 people and drew widespread international condemnation? Prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other officials have claimed the largest strike against Hezbollah during the month-long war against Iran was carefully aimed at members of the armed group, but the attacks appeared to be as much a piece of violent spectacle to benefit Netanyahu as militarily useful. Others have speculated that the attack – without warning and initially hitting more than 100 targets in 10 minutes including in densely populated residential areas in central Beirut – was aimed at undermining the US-Iran ceasefire that many see as being imposed on an unhappy Netanyahu. The version being briefed in the Israeli media is that Hezbollah had sought to move command posts to civilian areas outside its historical centres, such as the sprawling Dahieh suburb, to better conceal and protect them – a claim Israel has previously made about Hamas in Gaza. But the huge scale of the attack, combined with the lack of the warning and the details of some of those killed – including the Hezbollah secretary general Naim Qassem’s nephew and personal adviser Ali Yusuf Harshi – could point to something more ambitious: a failed attempt to kill Qassem himself. His predecessor, Hassan Nasrallah, was assassinated by Israel in 2024. What is clear is that in the half-baked ceasefire negotiations conducted by Donald Trump and his coterie of amateur diplomats, the question of Israel’s war in Lebanon against a proxy of Tehran has – deliberately or not – been left ticking like a timebomb. The Israeli strikes came despite the fact that Hezbollah had said it had been “notified of a ceasefire” and had been “committed to it since this morning”, according to Lebanese political sources. By Thursday, Hezbollah and Israel were trading heavy fire again. Netanyahu’s justification for such a horrific attack on civilian centres hours after the ceasefire had been announced appeared thin at least. His boasts about killing an aide to Qassem and his insistence of Israel’s right to continuing striking in Lebanon suggested to some that it was an attempt to act as a spoiler in a ceasefire he had argued against. Instead, Israeli officials – despite believing that the wider ceasefire may collapse – appear to believe that they have at least two weeks to continue operations in Lebanon as talks between Iran and the US are due to continue. The irony not lost on observers is that it is Israel’s continued fighting that could collapse a deal, with senior Iranian figures warning of a response against Israel on Thursday. The president, Masoud Pezeshkian, said the Israeli strikes on Lebanon violated the ceasefire agreement and would render negotiations meaningless. The Soufan Center thinktank in New York said: “Even if Lebanon was formally outside the deal, the scale of Israel’s strikes was likely to be viewed as escalatory, nonetheless. Israel’s strikes can be understood both as an effort to drive a wedge between Iran and its proxies and as a response to being allegedly sidelined in the original ceasefire discussions.” In its newsletter, the thinktank added: “The Wall Street Journal reported that Israel was informed of the deal only at the last minute and ‘wasn’t happy’. Netanyahu now seems determined to pursue a scorched earth policy in Lebanon, even if – or perhaps especially because – it might scuttle the ceasefire deal. “At the same time, Iran is likely seeking to exploit and widen any existing tensions between the United States and Israel in an effort to divide the two allies.” For Marion Messmer, the director of the international security programme at Chatham House, Israel’s strikes on Lebanon point to a deeper issue: Washington’s difficulty in managing its relationship with Israel, its ally in the war against Iran. In a briefing, Messmer wrote: “Israel’s insistence that its military action in Lebanon is not part of the agreement reveals a key vulnerability and shows the limits of the US ability to manage its allies: the ongoing bombing campaigns in Lebanon could undermine the ceasefire overall and keep the US trapped in a conflict it is now seeking to exit. “After weeks of President Trump being furious with European allies for not sufficiently supporting the US, it now appears to be the alliance relationship with Israel that provides more of a risk to US interests in the Middle East.” Underlining questions about the purpose and timing of Wednesday’s strikes are claims that the Israel Defense Forces’ own assessment is that – despite Israel’s latest invasion into southern Lebanon and its bombing campaign – disarming or defeating Hezbollah is unrealistic.