Src》https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yx8knpr5no
"JERUSALEM, March 31 (Reuters) - Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area. Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended."
Src》https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all...
I wish it wasn't like this but there's no point in not facing reality
"Under present international law, annexation no longer constitutes a legally admissible mode of acquisition of territory as it violates the prohibition of the threat or use of force (Use of Force, Prohibition of). Therefore annexations must not be recognized as legal."
Src》https://opil.ouplaw.com/display/10.1093/law:epil/97801992316...
Put simply: You must not just build a buffer zone on someone elses territory. (You of course can build one on you own as you wish)
The question is why do people keep falling for the arguments against Israel when clearly Israel was attacked from Lebanon, is not attacking any neighbor that does not attack it, and is responding just like any other normal country would when it is attacked.
Responding by leveling the homes of millions of civilians, holding people in an open air prison. Limiting food, water, and medicine, killing journalists, building an apartheid state, systematically using rape as a means of controlling prisoners, deploying white phosphorus on civilian populations.... these are not just or reasonable responses.
Israel's actions are truly horrifying in scale. The violence aimed at civilians, the systemic abuse of people just trying to survive on subsistence.
I'm not falling for any arguments. I'm simply observing what Israel is doing and saying, "this is truly awful. The scale of misery they are deploying against their enemies is unconscionable."
Incorrect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_attack_on_Doha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_airstrike_on_the_Irani...
EDIT: exploring the legality of this with AI:
The "Unwilling or Unable" Doctrine: A major debate in international law is whether a state can use force in self-defense against a non-state actor located in another sovereign state. Some nations (like the US and Israel) argue for the "unwilling or unable" standard. This doctrine suggests that if a host state (e.g., Qatar) is unwilling or unable to stop a non-state actor (e.g., Hamas) from using its territory to direct or launch attacks, the victim state (Israel) has the right to use force within the host state's borders to defend itself.
Violations of Sovereignty: Conversely, many states and legal experts reject the "unwilling or unable" doctrine. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter strictly prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of another state. From this viewpoint, executing a strike in Qatar without Qatari consent or a UN Security Council mandate would be viewed as an illegal act of aggression and a violation of Qatar's sovereignty.
I think my overall point still stands though that in the absences of aggression towards Israel Israel would not be attacking. The exact threshold though is obviously something we debate- e.g. whether simply hosting the leadership of Hamas is enough of a reason to take military action. But it's a reason (i.e. Israel had some self-defense justification).
Some people cannot take a step back and consider other perspectives, unfortunately.
Edit: see? Their response, "I like it"? This person is deeply troubled and misanthropic.
So by your logic it is fair game to attack Lebanon due to its treatment of prisoners?
Lebanon also commits war crimes by firing rockets indiscriminately into Israeli population centers.
Why is your rage so selective?
Israeli-backed army ran a torture center in south Lebanon for years.
https://www.hrw.org/news/1999/10/27/israel-responsible-abuse...
Given the level of bloodthirst in Israeli society currently, and the accounts of torture of Palestinians in Israeli custody, I’m afraid that something similar is just around the corner for Lebanese as well.
But Lebanon and other Arab countries still routines arbitrarily imprison and torture their citizens.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/06/26/lebanon-enforce-anti-tor...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_insurgency_in_Sout...
"Israel strikes Lebanon after Iran ally Hezbollah fires missiles over border"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/02/israel-idf-str...
Yes.
“Lebanese Maronite Catholic priest Fr. Pierre al-Rahi, … was killed in this village in southern Lebanon during an Israeli artillery tank fire on a house March 9, 2026 … al-Rahi had earlier refused, along with other priests, to obey an order by the Israeli military to evacuate the Christian village of Qlayaa”
https://www.ncronline.org/news/lebanese-maronite-catholic-pr...
I think they are hardly disciplined here.
Does anyone still believe this? I mean, even if it's technically true, it is very well known Hezbollah sneaks as close as they can to UN bases, and then fires rockets at Israeli civilians from there, intentionally. And yes, I'm sure that this creates more than a bit of tension.
But even if that did result in a firefight ... it's not Israel that's responsible. Nobody seriously believes that.
As to what's common between Hezbollah and Hamas and Iran in the way they treat their civilians I will leave that as an exercise to the reader.
"Lebanese armed group Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel in response to the United States-Israeli war on Iran. Israeli forces have also launched a ground invasion of southern Lebanon."
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/5/at-least-14-people-k...
> Israel's self defense actions
> this is a war crime
Wow-wow just stop that bs. Without israel that region would be much safer.
Wow-wow just stop that bs. Without Israel people in the region would be murdering each other just like they did in Syria, in the Iran-Iraq war, in Yemen, in Lebanon's civil war etc. Maybe if those countries stopped attacking Israel they wouldn't be in war Mr. warmonger.
EDIT: It's worth mentioning that an attack on another country is not a legal reason according to international law to attack a third country. The critics of Israel and the US are claiming those started an "illegal war" on Iran so by that same rationale Lebanon started an illegal war on Israel.
Maybe if Israel stopped violently expropriating Arab lands, and assaulting and raping Arabs without consequences. It’s really not that complicated.
This is objectively happening in the West Bank and Gaza.
> assaulting and raping Arabs without consequences.
This is also objectively happening. A group of IDF soldiers were filmed raping a man to death. Their punishment? Literally nothing. They are cheered by some.
You cannot possibly believe that these sorts of behaviors are helping calm things.
Most modern instances of ethnic cleansing are justified as military necessities.
E.g.: Armenian genocide
“Article 1—During war time, army and corp commanders and their deputies and commanders of fortified posts are obliged to destroy any assault or resistance and violently restore order with military forces in the case of opposition, armed attacks or resistance directed against the government orders, the defense of homeland and the preservation of public order.
Article 2—Army, independent corp and division commanders are allowed to transfer and relocate the village and town population in matters related to the military affair or if they feel there is an activity of espionage and treason.”
One can believe both parties are committing atrocities, even if the scale is clearly different between them.
a) Rise of alternate forms of organizing trust. People distrust government or other organizations, and turn to alternative forms of organization and trust.
b) Rise of digital wallet/transfer systems that are fundamentally about charging for throughput/withdrawals. The article mentions that banks are restricting withdraws - presumably because banks need deposits to stay liquid. Whish on the other hand doesn't care - it makes money as a % of each transaction.
These people are Syrian immigrants (largely), pretend to be Shi'a muslims (but aren't), and have moved to Southern Libanon, decades ago, throwing out (and worse) the original (Christian) population, because they were paid to do so. Then in the last war they ran away from the south, to avoid fighting, and they were largely welcomed into Beirut, especially southern Beirut, many taken in by Christians and Sunni (partially because they had money and Lebanon was in a deep crisis). Then a lot of them never left, threw the people who had taken them in out of their own homes. They simply stole the apartments of people who took them in, then chased inhabitants out of entire blocks.
This time, neighbors sometimes literally attack anybody tries to help these people, and chase the refugees away, for fear of a repeat.
The result is, of course, a deep typical middle eastern crisis. Deep misery. Money is deeply involved, corruption is everywhere. Nobody, especially not the people who are now in deep trouble, are innocent. And there is no real solution, nor is anybody interested in providing a solution.
Iran's islamist regime is directly responsible for this crisis, through giving these people money and weapons, but of course they are not available to resolve anything (and that's NOT because the US is attacking them, yes that's a problem, but it's not like they would help anyone if they were doing fine)