And we are hearing more and more from Israeli officials and their mouthpieces in the Western media suggesting a bigger war is increasingly likely.
The 7 October attacks changed the rules for Israel, we are being told. The decades-long policy of living with threats and managing them has ended in the worst massacre of Jews since World War II. Something has to give.
So, Israel must deal with its two closest enemies, Hamas to the south and Hezbollah to the north, or so goes the logic.
We heard that message from the early days of this war. Yoav Gallant, Israel’s minister for defence, reportedly advocated attacking both, but was said to be talked out of it by more moderate ministers and the Americans.
How much of all this is bluster, chutzpah and how much calculated tactics is not clear.
The Beirut airstrike achieved a number of objectives. It killed a sworn foe and sent a message to others, no one is safe. Israel is battling to restore the power of its deterrence and the fear of its enemies after the bloody debacle of 7 October.
Image: Hezbollah fighters stand atop a truck. Pic: AP
It also sent a clear message to Hezbollah. For months the Shia militia organisation has been threatening Israel and attacking it over the border but never going all out. “You want to dance?” Israel is saying to its leadership, “well we can dance and we are serious about it”.
The bellicose rhetoric from officials and friendly journalists serves the same purpose. It warns Hezbollah from starting anything it may come to regret.
But it is important to see beyond the bluster. Some key fundamentals remain unchanged.
Hezbollah has an arsenal of 150,000 missiles hidden in the hills of southern Lebanon pointing at Israel. They are primarily for Iran’s benefit, most analysts agree.
The ayatollahs paid for them and supplied them as insurance against attack in another war, when Israel, possibly with American backing, strikes Iran’s nuclear weapons project. Tehran will not want to play that card prematurely whatever Israel’s provocations in the skies over Beirut.
Image: An Israeli soldier and a Hezbollah flag. Pic: AP
Hezbollah also knows a war would be ruinous for a Lebanon already on its knees economically. It would do nothing to improve the organisation’s political standing.
So if Iran and Hezbollah do not want outright war with Israel, does Israel?
A war with Hezbollah would be devastating for Israel too. Their conflict in 2006 was destructive enough but its enemies now have 10 times as many missiles and they are thought to be more advanced than the arsenal let loose back then. The range of Hezbollah’s rockets is thought to stretch across Israel now and with improved targeting technology. Nowhere would be safe from attack.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:54
Senior Hamas official killed in explosion
When Israel went into Lebanon on the ground in 2006 its military’s performance was deemed lacklustre by military experts. How much better could it expect to fare now, its resources stretched by a war on its southern border that is three months old?
Israel would far rather Hezbollah is weakened through diplomatic pressure. It is calling on the international community to force Hezbollah to withdraw its forces north of the Litani River, as required under agreements in 2006. Israel hopes predictions of war will galvanise diplomacy towards achieving that aim.
So there are good reasons why war is not as likely as it looks. But it may still come. Israel is still working out its new posture post-7 October. Hawks may still win the day and lead their country into a far wider conflict in the belief that is the only way to keep Israel safe.
And mistakes, miscalculation and escalation could start another war in the Middle East as they have in the past. The danger of this war expanding remains very real.
In the long Gaza war, this is a significant moment.
For the people of Gaza, for the hostages and their families – this could be the moment it ends. But we have been here before, so many times.
The key question – will Hamas accept what Israel has agreed to: a 60-day ceasefire?
At the weekend, a source at the heart of the negotiations told me: “Both Hamas and Israel are refusing to budge from their position – Hamas wants the ceasefire to last until a permanent agreement is reached. Israel is opposed to this. At this point only President Trump can break this deadlock.”
The source added: “Unless Trump pushes, we are in a stalemate.”
The problem is that the announcement made now by Donald Trump – which is his social-media-summarised version of whatever Israel has actually agreed to – may just amount to Israel’s already-established position.
We don’t know the details and conditions attached to Israel’s proposals.
Would Israeli troops withdraw from Gaza? Totally? Or partially? How many Palestinian prisoners would they agree to release from Israel’s jails? And why only 60 days? Why not a total ceasefire? What are they asking of Hamas in return? We just don’t know the answers to any of these questions, except one.
We do know why Israel wants a 60-day ceasefire, not a permanent one. It’s all about domestic politics.
If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was to agree now to a permanent ceasefire, the extreme right-wingers in his coalition would collapse his government.
Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich have both been clear about their desire for the war to continue. They hold the balance of power in Mr Netanyahu’s coalition.
If Mr Netanyahu instead agrees to just 60 days – which domestically he can sell as just a pause – then that may placate the extreme right-wingers for a few weeks until the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, is adjourned for the summer.
It is also no coincidence that the US president has called for Mr Netanyahu’s corruption trial to be scrapped.
Without the prospect of jail, Mr Netanyahu might be more willing to quit the war safe in the knowledge that focus will not shift immediately to his own political and legal vulnerability.
The Women’s Euros begin in Switzerland today – with extreme heat warnings in place.
Security measures have had to be relaxed by UEFA for the opening matches so fans can bring in water bottles.
Temperatures could be about 30C (86F) when the Swiss hosts open their campaign against Norway in Basel this evening.
Players have already seen the impact of heatwaves this summer at the men’s Club World Cup in the US.
Image: The Spain squad pauses for refreshments during a training session. Pic: AP
It is raising new concerns in the global players’ union about whether the stars of the sport are being protected in hot and humid conditions.
FIFPRO has asked FIFA to allow cooling breaks every 15 minutes rather than just in the 30th minute of each half.
There’s also a request for half-time to be extended from 15 to 20 minutes to help lower the core temperature of players.
More on Football
Related Topics:
FIFPRO’s medical director, Dr Vincent Gouttebarge, said: “There are some very challenging weather conditions that we anticipated a couple of weeks ago already, that was already communicated to FIFA.
“And I think the past few weeks were confirmation of all worries that the heat conditions will play a negative role for the performance and the health of the players.”
Football has seemed focused on players and fans baking in the Middle East – but scorching summers in Europe and the US are becoming increasingly problematic for sport.
Image: England are the tournament’s defending champions. Pic: AP
While climate change is a factor, the issue is not new and at the 1994 World Cup, players were steaming as temperatures rose in the US.
There is now more awareness of the need for mitigation measures among players and their international union.
FIFPRO feels football officials weren’t responsive when it asked for kick-off times to be moved from the fierce afternoon heat in the US for the first 32-team Club World Cup.
FIFA has to balance the needs of fans and broadcasters with welfare, with no desire to load all the matches in the same evening time slots.
Electric storms have also seen six games stopped, including a two-hour pause during a Chelsea game at the weekend.
This is the dress rehearsal for the World Cup next summer, which is mostly in the US.
Image: Players are also feeling the heat at the Club World Cup. Pic: AP
The use of more indoor, air conditioned stadiums should help.
There is no prospect of moving the World Cup to winter, as Qatar had to do in 2022.
And looking further ahead to this time in 2030, there will be World Cup matches in Spain, Portugal and Morocco. The temperatures this week have been hitting 40C (104F) in some host cities.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:08
Wildfires erupt in Italy and France amid heatwave
FIFA said in a statement to Sky News: “Heat conditions are a serious topic that affect football globally.
“At the FCWC some significant and progressive measures are being taken to protect the players from the heat. For instance, cooling breaks were implemented in 31 out of 54 matches so far.
“Discussions on how to deal with heat conditions need to take place collectively and FIFA stands ready to facilitate this dialogue, including through the Task Force on Player Welfare, and to receive constructive input from all stakeholders on how to further enhance heat management.
“In all of this, the protection of players must be at the centre.”
Around 14 million people could die across the world over the next five years because of cuts to the US Agency for International Development (USAID), researchers have warned.
Children under five are expected to make up around a third (4.5 million) of the mortalities, according to a study published in The Lancet medical journal.
Estimates showed that “unless the abrupt funding cuts announced and implemented in the first half of 2025 are reversed, a staggering number of avoidable deaths could occur by 2030”.
“Beyond causing millions of avoidable deaths – particularly among the most vulnerable – these cuts risk reversing decades of progress in health and socioeconomic development in LMICs [low and middle-income countries],” the report said.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:21
March: ‘We are going to lose children’: Fears over USAID cuts in Kenya
USAID programmes have prevented the deaths of more than 91 million people, around a third of them among children, the study suggests.
The agency’s work has been linked to a 65% fall in deaths from HIV/AIDS, or 25.5 million people.
Eight million deaths from malaria, more than half the total, around 11 million from diarrheal diseases and nearly five million from tuberculosis (TB), have also been prevented.
USAID has been vital in improving global health, “especially in LMICs, particularly African nations,” according to the report.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:24
Queer HIV activist on Trump and Musk’s USAID cuts
Established in 1961, the agency was tasked with providing humanitarian assistance and helping economic growth in developing countries, especially those deemed strategic to Washington.
But the Trump administration has made little secret of its antipathy towards the agency, which became an early victim of cuts carried out by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) – formerly led by Elon Musk – in what the US government said was part of a broader plan to remove wasteful spending.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:35
What is USAID?
In March, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said more than 80% of USAID schemes had been closed following a six-week review, leaving around 1,000 active.
The US is the world’s largest humanitarian aid donor, providing around $61bn (£44bn) in foreign assistance last year, according to government data, or at least 38% of the total, and USAID is the world’s leading donor for humanitarian and development aid, the report said.
Between 2017 and 2020, the agency responded to more than 240 natural disasters and crises worldwide – and in 2016 it sent food assistance to more than 53 million people across 47 countries.
The study assessed all-age and all-cause mortality rates in 133 countries and territories, including all those classified as low and middle-income, supported by USAID from 2001 to 2021.