In recent weeks, John Ashton, a physician and public-health expert, has been a regular presence on the United Kingdom’s state-funded television station. Ashton, a member of the Labor party who has previously gotten himself into trouble for using foul language on Twitter, turns out to have a record of anti-Semitic pronouncements. Stephen Pollard writes:

Among other things, [Ashton] has compared “Zionists” to Nazis and written that “Jews” should reflect on the actions of the Israeli military. [A]fter calling Louise Ellman, [a Jewish Labor parliamentarian who resigned in response to the anti-Semitism in her party], a “vile Zionist,” he wrote: “Is it time for a human being to stand against Louise Ellman in next year’s general election?” In a message sent to Luciana Berger, [another Jewish MP who resigned from Labor for the same reason], after she highlighted the rising problem with food banks . . . in 2012, he wrote: “What about the Palestinians?”

When a prominent Jewish group wrote a letter to the BBC’s head of news, Fran Unsworth, calling these statements to her attention, and asking that Ashton’s television appearances be discontinued, she responded with a letter of her own stating that, while she understands her correspondents’ “strength of feeling about the views [they] have ascribed to Professor Ashton on Israel and Zionism,” he has not expressed such views on air. Moreover, wrote Unsworth, it would be bad policy to “ban” Ashton because of his “political views.” Pollard responds:

Anti-Semitic remarks, according to the BBC’s head of news, are merely “political views.” Yeah, some people won’t like them but, hey, others will and it’s not our job to take sides in the day-to-day cut and thrust of political views, you know. Anti-Semitism—it’s just a political choice.

The charitable explanation is that Ms. Unsworth is an idiot. . . . But I doubt very much she is an idiot. The real worry is that she knows exactly what the words she used mean and she genuinely does think that, when one of the BBC’s regular talking heads is exposed for having spouted such sentiments, he is merely expressing a political view.

Below, today’s newsletter will return to some other reflections on the one-year anniversary of the outbreak of the current war, but first something must be said of its recent progress. Israel has kept up its aerial and ground assault on Hizballah, and may have already killed the successor to Hassan Nasrallah, the longtime leader it eliminated less than two weeks ago. Matthew Levitt assesses the current state of the Lebanon-based terrorist group, which, in his view, is now “a shadow of its former self.” Indeed, he adds,

it is no exaggeration to say that the Hizballah of two weeks ago no longer exists. And since Hizballah was the backbone of Iran’s network of militant proxies, its so-called axis of resistance, Iran’s strategy of arming and deploying proxy groups throughout the region is suddenly at risk as well.

Hizballah’s attacks put increasing pressure on Israel, as intended, only that pressure did not lead Israelis to stop targeting Hamas so much as it chipped away at Israel’s fears about the cost of military action to address the military threats posed by Hizballah.

At the same time, Levitt explains, Hizballah still poses a serious threat, as it demonstrated last night when its missiles struck Haifa and Tiberias, injuring at least two people:

Hizballah still maintains an arsenal of rockets and a cadre of several thousand fighters. It will continue to pose potent military threats for Israel, Lebanon, and the wider region.

How will the group seek to avenge Nasrallah’s death amid these military setbacks? Hizballah is likely to resort to acts of international terrorism, which are overseen by one of the few elements of the group that has not yet lost key leaders.

But the true measure of whether the group will be able to reconstitute itself, even over many years, is whether Iran can restock Hizballah’s sophisticated arsenal. Tehran’s network of proxy groups—from Hizballah to Hamas to the Houthis—is only as dangerous as it is today because of Iran’s provision of weapons and money. Whatever Hizballah does next, Western governments must prioritize cutting off Tehran’s ability to arm and fund its proxies.