The problem here is no matter what article (fact) we produce, your response is to dismiss our...narrative, with your own. so when we see 20+ villages being bombed into the stone age, scorched earth, you see legitimate military targets being neutralised. Or, we see women and children being targeted and you see unfortunate casualties of Hamas (or Hezbollah's) terrorist (or say armed resistance) activities. Israel is in another country right now, an invasion, it has no intention of allowing citizens of that country to return to their homes and the Israeli military is ensuring there are no homes or land to return to. If Israel wanted to be safe, having cordial relations would be a good start, but instead what we see is destruction at a level not seen anywhere in the world for a long long time.

Lets talk about human shields - you say, its Hamas / Hezbollah responsible, and that they use human shields (as they are embedded in the communities). What about Israel? it is a documented fact - by Amnesty International, B'Tselem, and even Israel's own Supreme Court, that Israeli forces have used Palestinian civilians as human shields during operations in Gaza. So if we are assigning blame for civilian deaths based on who uses human shields, that blame runs in both directions. You can't use that argument to absolve Israel while ignoring its own record. Well, you can use that argument but it does not hold.

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 30 2026 03:20am

If they initiate an attack they will pay for it with buffer zone

You are trying to turn concrete military reality into a philosophical debate about 'narratives,' but facts aren't a matter of opinion.
First, let's talk about your Supreme Court 'gotcha.' You completely scored an own goal. The fact that Israel’s independent Supreme Court openly investigated, debated, and legally banned soldiers from using the 'neighbor procedure' decades ago is the ultimate proof of a democracy with a rule of law. When individual Israeli soldiers violate that law, they are prosecuted.
Now look at the other side: Hamas and Hezbollah don't have rogue soldiers breaking rules human shielding is their entire official military strategy. They don't have a Supreme Court banning it; they have leadership explicitly telling civilians to stay in the line of fire so their deaths can be used as PR weapons. To equate a democracy that legally bans a practice with a terrorist organization that builds its entire warfare model around it is intellectual dishonesty at its peak.
Second, you say Israel should have tried 'cordial relations.' Israel completely withdrew from Gaza in 2005, tore down every single settlement, and left behind a thriving agricultural infrastructure. The response? Gaza elected Hamas, tore down the greenhouses to build rocket launchers, and fired thousands of missiles at our towns. In Lebanon, Israel withdrew to the internationally recognized border in 2000. The response? Hezbollah built a massive terror fortress on our fence.
We tried 'cordial relations' by retreating to our borders, and we got October 7th and thousands of rockets in return.
You see 'villages being bombed'; we see the concrete launchpads that fired anti-tank missiles into our homes for a year. Israel is invading southern Lebanon because UN Resolution 1701 completely failed to keep Hezbollah away from our border. If a country is attacked unprovoked for a year, it has every right under international law to cross that border and destroy the infrastructure meant to annihilate it. You can call it a 'narrative' all you want, but Israel is choosing survival over your approval.

You are completely missing the nature of conflict. War is not a domestic criminal investigation where you selectively arrest an individual suspect; it is a tragic, national event between two mobilized political entities.
When a society or its government chooses to launch a total war as Hamas and Hezbollah did the entire territory becomes the theater of conflict. The resulting destruction and civilian collateral damage are the horrific, inevitable consequences of urban warfare against an enemy that embeds itself in civilian infrastructure.
It is not 'collective punishment.' Punishment is a judicial concept meant for a courtroom or a prison. In war, targeting the enemy's military capabilities to stop them from murdering your own citizens is basic national survival. You cannot launch a war as a nation, hide your weapons under your civilian population, and then complain that fighting back constitutes a crime

This post was edited by Many_Names on Jun 30 2026 04:52am

There are reports that Israel is spraying Southern Lebanon with chemicals in order to ensure that the land itself dies. What is your view on this?
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-10-2026-001225_EN.html

This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 30 2026 10:24am

You have no idea what your talking about…
Independent monitoring organizations (like PAX for Peace) analyzed the satellite imagery of that area. What does it actually show? A narrow, 7-to-10-meter-wide lane right along the border where herbicides (like standard glyphosate) were sprayed.
Israel isn't 'spraying chemicals to make the land die' the military is clearing dense wild vegetation directly on the border fence to maintain visibility. This is a standard tactical security measure used by militaries worldwide to prevent terrorists from using thick brush to sneak up to the border, plant explosive devices on the fence, or build hidden anti-tank missile launchpads.
You continuously try to frame basic, logical border defense as a comic-book conspiracy to destroy the earth. If Hezbollah hadn't spent years embedding an invasion infrastructure in that exact brush, and firing rockets across that exact fence, border visibility wouldn't be an issue. Once again, you are ignoring the security threat to focus entirely on the measures taken to stop it.

You are not wrong, I DO NOT know what I am talking about. That's why I ask questions and why I read a lot. But there is a disconnect here. You are referring to a 7 to 10 meter wide "lane" while the report is referring to the aerial spraying of chemicals on farmland in southern Lebanon and Syria in early 2026, with Lebanese authorities confirming the use of glyphosate at extremely high concentrations. I am reading conflicting reports related to forestry (from the burning of Olive trees to the burning of forests) but all of the reports suggest more then clearing out a 7-to-10 meter lane.

Can you explain this to me to help me understand?



This post was edited by ferdia on Jun 30 2026 11:59am

I appreciate you wanting to understand the details, Ferida, because there is a massive difference between tactical military reality and the propaganda put out by hostile governments. To clear up the disconnect, we have to look at the broader, tragic context of this combat zone.
First, we need to separate tactical measures from the collateral damage of heavy warfare:

When militaries use herbicides, the objective is removing wild brush, dense weeds, and thick overgrowth right along the border that hides tunnels, bunker openings, and anti-tank launchpads. Israel has zero strategic interest in destroying random farmland. However, Hezbollah intentionally places its military infrastructure like rocket launchers and hidden supply shafts directly inside agricultural fields and olive groves to use nature as a cloak.

The widespread reports you are reading about 'burning olive trees' and 'destroyed forests' are largely not caused by liquid chemical sprays. They are the direct result of intense, heavy combat. When thousands of high-explosive rockets, anti-tank missiles, and artillery shells fly back and forth, the dry Mediterranean brush inevitably catches fire.
Second, this environmental devastation completely shatters the narrative of a one-sided Israeli plot to poison the earth. The Israeli north is completely burned, too.

Tens of thousands of acres of Israeli forests, nature reserves, and family farms across the Galilee and the Golan Heights have been reduced to ash by Hezbollah’s relentless, unprovoked rocket and drone barrages over the last year. If the environmental damage were a calculated Israeli chemical conspiracy, the Israeli side of the border wouldn't be equally devastated by fires.

The Lebanese authorities you are quoting belong to a government dominated by Hezbollah. They have a massive political interest in framing the natural, destructive fallout of a war they started as a pre-planned war crime. The fires burning on both sides of the fence are a tragedy, but they are the direct, catastrophic result of Hezbollah’s choice to turn a peaceful border region into an active front line.

I dont have enough knowledge to respond to this at this time. thank you for your post.