Israel and Hezbollah have engaged in the heaviest exchange of fire in 18 years, and the conflict shows little sign of abating

What happened?
Israel and Hezbollah bombarded each other with hundreds of missiles and rockets on Sunday – their heaviest exchange of fire since 2006. Israel said it had got wind of an imminent Hezbollah attack, and that its jets had launched "pre-emptive" strikes on targets in Lebanon. Hezbollah claimed that it had nevertheless managed to fire 320 rockets and dozens of drones at Israel in retaliation for its assassination in July of Fuad Shukr, the Iran-backed group’s military commander. The exchange prompted fears of a wider war; but both sides later signalled that they wanted to avoid any further escalation at this point. Israel and Hezbollah have been exchanging rocket fire since the Gaza conflict erupted in October. The US-led talks to secure a ceasefire in Gaza, and the release of Hamas-held hostages, continued in Cairo this week; but despite a diplomatic push from Washington, there was no sign of the two sides being close to agreeing a deal.

What the editorials said
The fear of a wider regional war has stalked the Middle East ever since Hamas's appalling attack on Israel on 7 October, said The Times. It has been fuelled by Israel's tough military response in Gaza, and by Hezbollah strikes on northern Israel. Fortunately, Sunday's eruption proved "performative rather than provocative": Israel's strikes only killed three people; Hezbollah's riposte killed one. Still, the danger hasn't passed, said The Guardian. Iran is yet to retaliate for the assassination of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran in July; and Israel's PM Benjamin Netanyahu warned that Sunday's strikes were not "the end of the story".

Israel had every right to act, said The Wall Street Journal. In the past 10 months, Hezbollah has fired some 6,700 drones and missiles across the border, forcing 80,000 Israelis to flee. That its attack on Sunday was not more serious was due to Israel limiting it: their intelligence was that the group was planning a major assault, which could have sparked a wider war. As it was, its "best direct hit seems to have been on an Israeli chicken coop".

What the commentators said
"Take a breath and relax." That was the advice of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah after his group's exchange with Israel, said David Ignatius in The Washington Post. And it was sound: this flare-up was "a model of calculated escalation", in which each side stopped well short of the conflagration the world has feared. "Both have compelling reasons not to go to war now," said Julian Borger in The Guardian. Israel has yet to eliminate Hamas in Gaza, and does not have the stamina for a new front; and its generals know that a war with Hezbollah could not be won without a ground invasion, which would cost Israeli lives. Hezbollah, in turn, knows that any war would be deeply unpopular in Lebanon, which is already mired in economic crisis; and Iran, its "regional patron", doesn't seem ready for a wider conflict, either. But that isn't to say that an "all-out war" won't happen. Both sides are using "very crude tools" – namely rockets and drones – to make their points, and the risk of miscalculation is high.

Hezbollah has said that if there is a ceasefire in Gaza, there will be one in Lebanon. But while US diplomats often declare that a deal is just one heave away, it never arrives, said Richard Spencer in The Times. Now, though, things are looking up: the two sides are currently haggling over control of the Philadelphi Corridor on the Gaza-Egypt border, suggesting that larger issues may be settled. An end to the war in Gaza might stop the current cycle of escalation, said The Economist. But will it defuse the "bigger conflict" between Iran (and its proxies) and Israel? There are many unknowns that complicate that question. Such as, the identity of the next US president; the chances of reformers triumphing in their "opaque struggle" with hardliners in Iran; and Israel's willingness to keep tolerating rocket attacks on its northern areas – and not launching a bigger campaign to destroy Hezbollah's Iran-supplied arsenal. "Even if the latest exchange of hostilities peters out", the chances of the longer war ending seem far less certain.

What next?
Israel launched a major operation in the occupied West Bank on Wednesday. For the first time since the Second Intifada (Palestinian uprising) of 2000-2005, its ground forces entered several cities at the same time, killing at least 10 Palestinians. Israel said that its raids – in Jenin, Tulkarm, Nablus and Tubas – were part of a counter-terror operation. In Jenin, the IDF surrounded a refugee camp that it described as a hotbed of Palestinian militancy; elsewhere the IDF reportedly blocked access to hospitals and roads. Israel said it was thwarting "Islamic-Iranian terrorist infrastructures".

I've always "prided myself on giving my sons very long reins", said Rowan Pelling in The Independent. Yet that said, I'm still a "bit in awe" of TV presenter Kirstie Allsopp, who last week revealed that her 15-year-old son has just returned from Interrailing around Europe for three weeks with a 16-year-old friend. "If we're afraid our children will also be afraid," she tweeted. "If we let go, they will fly." Her post caused a predictable furore – and even prompted an anonymous report to social services, who have opened a file on her child, Oscar. As I see it, though, said Sam Leith in The Spectator, we should be celebrating Allsopp's decision to let him stray that far from the coop. Ignore the busybodies and helicopter parents: "The average switched-on teenager" with a smartphone should be perfectly able to navigate a European transport system "without a chaperone". In fact, isn't that sort of thing – taking risks, finding a "bridge to the adult world" – exactly what growing up is all about?

Allsopp's attitude is very "cool" and progressive, said Barbara Ellen in The Observer. But might there not also be a faint whiff of "narcissism" about it: of the desire to be seen as the type of parent who wants to help write their child's "coming-of-age novel" so they can reminisce about their own youthful hedonism? Allsopp's post triggered a sea of "rosy-hued memories" of times past – hitchhiking and drug-taking, roaming free. Back in the real world, though, it's worth recognising the truth that things are a lot more on the edge for teenagers today. "Stabbings, rapes, assaults, spiking"; drugs more plentiful and more powerful than the "half an ecstasy tablet" we'd do at "groovy bops". And pointing out those risks doesn't make you a "terrible killjoy"; as a parent, it's "the job".

It's certainly a dangerous world out there, said Jenni Russell in The Times – just as it was in our day. "Children broke arms", got lost, "could be pressurised into sexual encounters they didn't want". Yet I'd still take real life with all its risks over the modern-day digital alternative. Gen Z have been dealt a double whammy of having their physical freedom restricted as never before while being "gifted" an addictive online universe that has led to a worldwide teenage mental health crisis. As they retreat "from the tiresome business of dealing with complex reality to a parallel universe of TikToks, Snapchat poses, gaming", they are losing the age-old ability to connect with fellow humans and navigate the physical world. "The danger for this generation doesn't come from encountering life, but from being shielded from it and reluctant to engage with it."

Cameras aren't allowed into federal courts in America, so it falls to courtroom artists to capture the scene, said Christian House in The Telegraph. Jane Rosenberg is one such artist; she has spent the last 40 years covering trials. Her sketches – of Donald Trump, Harvey Weinstein, Bill Cosby and others – have gone round the world.

"The defining image," she writes in a new book, "can happen at any moment" – so speed is of the essence. Working in pastels allows her to sketch quickly; and for lunch, she eats sandwiches made with soft challah (bread) as they can be gulped down fast. Some faces, she says, are easier to draw than others: Woody Allen, for instance, whom she sketched during his custody battle with Mia Farrow, was a cinch, as he had such a characterful face; but Farrow was tricky "because she was all smooth and beautiful".

Interesting faces were in plentiful supply when Rosenberg covered Mafia trials in the 1980s and '90s, and found herself bringing to life a rogues' gallery of mobsters. One mafioso, John Gotti, was indignant that she'd given him a double chin – so she took it down a notch, aware he was not a man to upset. A surreal moment came when she was sketching Ghislaine Maxwell at her trial in 2021, and noticed that Maxwell had started sketching her back. Was it a power play? "I don't know," muses Rosenberg drily. "Maybe she just likes art?"