• Israel deployed 100 jets in a large-scale airstrike targeting Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon, marking one of the most significant escalations in the conflict.
• Israel justifies its military actions as “preemptive,” targeting leaders from Hezbollah and Hamas to neutralize perceived threats.
The longstanding conflict between Israel and Hezbollah escalated dramatically on Sunday, as Israel launched what it termed “preemptive” airstrikes on southern Lebanon, deploying around 100 jets in a massive military operation. These airstrikes, which Israel claims were necessary to neutralize perceived threats, resulted in significant casualties and further destabilized the region. Despite Israel’s assertions, many view these strikes as another instance of its aggressive military policy, one that has repeatedly targeted Lebanon under the pretext of self-defense.
The roots of the current aggression can be traced back to Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza, which began nearly 11 months ago. Since then, Israel has regularly engaged in cross-border skirmishes with Hezbollah, a powerful Lebanese militia. However, the recent assassination of senior Hezbollah commander Fuad Shukr in Beirut by Israeli forces has reignited tensions, leading to a significant escalation in hostilities.
Israel has frequently justified its disproportionate military actions as necessary “preemptive” strikes—attacks carried out without immediate provocation, aimed at neutralizing perceived threats before they materialize. This strategy involves targeting and killing military leaders from groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, often citing the need to protect Israeli citizens from future attacks. However, when these leaders or their organizations inevitably strike back, Israel then frames its subsequent actions as acts of self-defense, thereby justifying further military aggression.
This tactic was evident earlier this year when Israel launched airstrikes on Tehran, the capital of Iran, targeting military installations. Despite the lack of an immediate threat, Israel justified the strikes as preemptive. When Iran retaliated with missile strikes, both Israel and the United States quickly condemned Iran as the aggressor, framing Israel’s initial attack as an act of self-defense. The U.S. fully backed Israel’s narrative, as it has done in numerous other instances, reinforcing the perception that Israel can carry out such attacks with impunity while shifting blame onto those who respond.
The consequences of Israel’s aggressive actions have been dire. At least three people were killed in Lebanon, including two Hezbollah fighters and a member of the Amal movement, a Shi’ite Muslim group allied with Hezbollah. The indiscriminate nature of the Israeli airstrikes has led to widespread destruction in southern Lebanese towns, such as Khiam, where homes and infrastructure have been heavily damaged. This pattern of Israeli military operations disproportionately impacting Lebanese civilians has been a recurring issue, reflecting a broader strategy that often disregards the heavy toll on non-combatants in favor of achieving military objectives.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has made it clear that his government will continue its aggressive military stance. “We are determined to do everything we can to defend our country… whoever harms us, we harm him,” Netanyahu stated, ignoring the broader implications of Israel’s actions on regional stability. This rhetoric embodies Israel’s consistent pattern of responding to perceived threats with excessive military force, often resulting in civilian casualties and destabilizing the region.
Hezbollah, on the other hand, has maintained that its actions were a legitimate response to Israel’s provocations. Nasrallah emphasized that Hezbollah’s retaliatory strikes were carefully planned and executed, dismissing Israel’s claims of preemptive action as an attempt to justify its own aggression. Hezbollah has also signaled that it may strike again if necessary, depending on the outcomes of this latest confrontation.
The international community has reacted with alarm to the latest developments. While the United States has predictably reaffirmed its support for Israel’s right to defend itself, this stance continues to ignore the disproportionate impact of Israel’s military actions on civilians in Lebanon. U.S. military presence in the region has been bolstered, ostensibly to protect American interests, however this move may only further escalate the already volatile situation.
United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has expressed deep concern, calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities. However, the effectiveness of such calls is doubtful, given Israel’s track record of disregarding international appeals for restraint in favor of pursuing its military objectives.
This latest surge in violence is not an isolated incident but part of a broader pattern of Israeli militarism that has plagued the region for decades. The ongoing genocide in Gaza, the frequent airstrikes in Lebanon, and the assassinations of key figures like Fuad Shukr and Hamas political leader Ismail Haniyeh are all indicative of Israel’s strategy of using force as its primary tool of foreign policy. Israel’s actions not only escalate tensions with Hezbollah but also risk drawing in other regional powers, such as Iran, further destabilizing the Middle East.
