Once again, voices across the Arab world are calling for a ceasefire in southern Lebanon. Once again, those calls are directed almost exclusively at Israel. And once again, the underlying premise appears to be that Israel alone is responsible for escalation—and therefore uniquely obligated to de-escalate—even when confronted with a heavily armed non-state actor entrenched along its border. 

The reality is less convenient. What is unfolding in southern Lebanon is not a conventional conflict between two states, but a confrontation between a sovereign country and a militia with its own army, command structure, and regional backing: Hezbollah. 

Negotiating with a terrorist organization 

Yet this asymmetry is often glossed over in prevailing diplomatic discourse. Israel is urged to exercise restraint, to engage in dialogue, to negotiate. Hezbollah, by contrast, is rarely subjected to the same level of expectation or pressure. 

This raises a fundamental question: why is Israel repeatedly expected to negotiate with an organization widely designated as a terrorist group, while regional actors make little effort to exert meaningful pressure on that same organization? 

The answer lies, to a large extent, in political convenience. Hezbollah is not merely a Lebanese actor; it is a regional proxy with deep ties to Iran. For many Arab........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)