Israeli Military Operations Destroy Entire Villages in Southern Lebanon

In the municipality of Yarine, in Lebanon's Tyre district, 74% of all structures have been reduced to rubble. In neighboring Dhayra, the figure is 72%. In Boustane, 71% [1]. Homes, mosques, cemeteries, roads, parks, and football pitches — erased not by the initial combat operations of October 2024, but in many cases weeks after a ceasefire agreement took effect on November 27, 2024 [2].

An investigation by Amnesty International, drawing on satellite imagery analysis and 77 verified videos published by Israeli soldiers and media between October 2024 and January 2025, documented the systematic demolition of civilian infrastructure across southern Lebanon's border zone [1]. An NBC News investigation found that 42% of all buildings in the areas seized by the Israel Defense Forces had been destroyed [3]. A separate Washington Post analysis placed the figure at nearly 25% of all buildings across the broader south Lebanon region — more than 40,000 structures [4].

The scale of this destruction, its continuation after the cessation of hostilities, and the demographic patterns of the affected communities have prompted international human rights organizations to call for war crimes investigations [2]. Israel frames the operations as a security necessity to prevent Hezbollah from reconstituting its military infrastructure along the border. The gap between these two assessments forms the central tension of the conflict's aftermath.

The Scale of Destruction: Satellite Evidence

Source: Amnesty International / Satellite Imagery Analysis

Data as of Aug 1, 2025CSV

Amnesty International's Evidence Lab documented more than 10,000 structures heavily damaged or destroyed between the start of Israel's ground invasion on October 1, 2024, and January 26, 2025 [1]. The damage was concentrated in municipalities along the border, where destruction rates far exceeded the regional average.

In Kfar Kila, over 1,300 structures — 52% of all buildings — and 133 acres of orchards were destroyed between September 26, 2024, and January 27, 2025 [1]. Verified video evidence showed Israeli soldiers manually laying explosives inside homes, bulldozing parks and religious sites, and ripping up roads, with some soldiers singing and cheering during the demolitions [2].

A Le Monde analysis placed the overall damage rate at 38% of buildings across the conflict zone [3]. The variation in these estimates — 25% across southern Lebanon broadly, 38-42% in the seized zone, and over 70% in the most affected municipalities — reflects both methodological differences and the concentrated nature of the destruction along the immediate border strip.

Comparison to 2006

The 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah, a 34-day conflict, resulted in approximately 1,200 Lebanese deaths and the leveling of around 250 multistory residential buildings, primarily concentrated around Hezbollah's headquarters in Beirut's southern suburbs [5]. The current campaign has produced a death toll 58% higher — at least 4,047 killed according to Lebanese authorities [6] — and structural destruction orders of magnitude greater, spread across dozens of municipalities rather than concentrated in a single urban area.

Israel's Security Rationale

Israeli officials have articulated a clear strategic logic for the demolitions. Then-Defense Minister Israel Katz called for the destruction of "all houses" in border areas, framing the campaign as necessary to block anti-tank missile threats to communities in northern Israel [7]. The IDF presented plans for a buffer zone extending 3 to 8 kilometers from the border, cleared of all civilian structures and Hezbollah infrastructure [8].

The military doctrine draws on Israel's experience with Hezbollah's October 7-adjacent cross-border attacks and the group's documented buildup of military positions in civilian areas. Israeli officials argued that Hezbollah's entrenchment in border villages made the civilian fabric itself a security threat [7].

An IDF official acknowledged to Israeli media that fully disarming Hezbollah was "unrealistic" and would require "going through every village in Lebanon one by one" [9]. The army did not expect to halt all rocket fire, as most launches originated north of the Litani River — well beyond the buffer zone [9]. This admission raises questions about the proportionality of village destruction if the stated objective cannot be achieved through the means employed.

Middle East Eye reported that Israel's plan involved a "Yellow Line" model, razing southern villages to create cleared sight lines, with exceptions made for several Christian communities along the border [8]. This selective approach has drawn scrutiny regarding whether security criteria were applied uniformly.

Hezbollah's Military Infrastructure

Israeli forces documented significant Hezbollah military infrastructure in southern Lebanese villages during their ground operations. The IDF reported finding more than 50 tunnel shafts, a command center 24 feet underground, and a tunnel near the border estimated to stretch 100 meters [10]. Near the village of El-Khiam, troops found a tunnel stocked with weapons near a church and hundreds of weapons inside a school, including anti-tank rockets, mortar shells, grenades, and explosive devices [10][11].

A map recovered from one tunnel showed locations of Israeli settlements and IDF positions, which Israel presented as evidence that Hezbollah was planning a large-scale cross-border attack [10].

The Israeli military stated that hundreds of military structures had been found in southern Lebanon, many embedded in civilian areas, with soldiers discovering a half-ton of explosives in the center of one village [11].

However, the correlation between verified military targets and the scope of civilian destruction remains contested. Amnesty International's investigation found that "the extensive destruction of civilian structures was carried out in apparent absence of imperative military necessity" [2], noting that much of the demolition occurred after Israeli forces had secured control of these areas and were operating outside of active combat. The question of whether the destruction was proportionate to documented military infrastructure, or extended well beyond it, is central to the legal debate.

International Humanitarian Law and War Crimes Allegations

Under international humanitarian law (IHL), the destruction of civilian property is prohibited unless required by "imperative military necessity" — a high legal threshold that demands a direct and concrete military advantage from each specific act of destruction [2]. The principle of proportionality further requires that expected civilian harm not be excessive relative to the anticipated military gain.

Amnesty International concluded that the pattern of destruction in southern Lebanon — particularly demolitions carried out after the ceasefire, in areas already under Israeli military control — constituted potential war crimes that must be investigated [2]. Human Rights Watch separately found that Israel's displacement of civilians in Lebanon constituted a "possible war crime," noting that forcible transfer of civilians not justified by military necessity or civilian security is prohibited [12].

The International Commission of Jurists (ICJ, the NGO — distinct from the International Court of Justice) called on Israel to "immediately stop using unlawful mass displacement orders and inflicting terror on civilians" [13].

No formal ICC proceedings have been initiated. Lebanon is not a party to the Rome Statute, which limits the court's jurisdiction. In April 2024, Lebanon's Council of Ministers instructed its foreign minister to declare acceptance of ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed from October 7, 2023, onward — but the government reversed course in May 2024 without public explanation [14]. Amnesty International and other organizations have continued to press Lebanon to accept ICC jurisdiction [15]. The UN Security Council could theoretically refer the situation, but no member state has formally proposed such a referral, and the United States' veto power makes passage unlikely given Washington's broader strategic relationship with Israel.

Displacement and the Failure to Return

Source: UNHCR / IOM / Lebanese Government

Data as of Feb 1, 2026CSV

At the height of the conflict in October 2024, more than 1.2 million Lebanese civilians were displaced — the largest wave of displacement Lebanon had seen in decades, according to the United Nations [16]. The November 27, 2024, ceasefire agreement required Israeli forces to withdraw from southern Lebanon within 60 days while the Lebanese Armed Forces deployed to the border region.

By early 2025, approximately 970,000 individuals had returned to their homes [17]. But more than 82,000 remained displaced as of mid-2025, and by February 2026 — over a year after the ceasefire — the International Organization for Migration still estimated 64,000 people unable to return [18].

The reasons are straightforward: many homes no longer exist. In municipalities where 70% or more of structures were destroyed, there is nothing to return to. The Norwegian Refugee Council described the situation as a "ceasefire in name only," citing ongoing Israeli attacks, continued occupation, and persistent displacement [17].

Since the ceasefire took effect, the Lebanese Armed Forces recorded near-daily violations [19]. Israeli forces confirmed over 500 airstrikes on alleged Hezbollah targets during the ceasefire period [19]. The Lebanese Health Ministry reported that Israeli attacks during the ceasefire killed 331 people and injured 945, with the UN confirming at least 127 of the fatalities were civilians [6]. Then-Defense Minister Katz stated that "Shiite residents of southern Lebanon who have evacuated will not return to their homes south of the Litani area until the safety of Israel's northern residents is guaranteed" [20].

Demographic Patterns and Disproportionate Impact

The destroyed villages are overwhelmingly Shia Muslim communities [20]. Israeli evacuation orders covered roughly 15% of Lebanese territory, concentrated in predominantly Shia areas of southern Lebanon and Beirut's southern suburbs [12]. Reports indicate that at least two border municipalities with majority Christian populations were spared from demolition under the buffer zone plan [8].

Drop Site News published an investigation arguing that Israel was conducting "a campaign to ethnically cleanse Southern Lebanon of Shia residents" [20]. The Arab Center DC drew historical parallels to the displacement of Lebanese Christians during earlier phases of the Israeli-Lebanese conflict [21].

Israel's position is that the targeting reflects Hezbollah's geographic footprint — the organization recruits from, operates in, and stores weapons within Shia communities — rather than sectarian intent. The IDF has stated that operations target military infrastructure regardless of the demographic composition of surrounding areas [7]. Whether the pattern of destruction reflects operational targeting of Hezbollah positions or constitutes collective punishment against a civilian population defined by sect is one of the most contested dimensions of the conflict.

The Reconstruction Gap

Source: World Bank / Lebanese Government / UN OCHA

Data as of Mar 1, 2026CSV

A Rapid Damage and Needs Assessment conducted by the World Bank estimated total conflict-related damages and losses at approximately $14 billion — $6.8 billion in physical destruction and $7.2 billion in economic losses — with reconstruction and recovery needs reaching $11 billion [22].

Against this figure, committed international funding remains a fraction of what is required. The World Bank approved $250 million in financing to support repair of critical public infrastructure, but the disbursement schedule shows $0 expected in 2025, $100 million in 2026, and $100 million in 2027 [22]. The UN and partners appealed for $308.3 million to fund immediate response operations from March to May 2026 [23].

Lebanon's government faces a credibility problem with donors. Al Jazeera reported that Beirut has been working to "regain donor trust" to secure reconstruction funds [24], a challenge compounded by the country's ongoing economic crisis, political dysfunction, and concerns about Hezbollah's role in reconstruction. The Foundation for Defense of Democracies argued that Lebanon was "conceding to Hezbollah's post-war reconstruction demands," a dynamic that could deter Western governments from contributing [25].

The Merip (Middle East Research and Information Project) documented how Beirut's Dahiyeh neighborhood, destroyed in previous conflicts, was rebuilt largely through Hezbollah-affiliated construction organizations — a precedent that Western donors are keen to avoid repeating in the south [26].

The gap between $11 billion in needs and hundreds of millions in commitments means reconstruction will take years, if not decades. For the tens of thousands of displaced families from destroyed villages, this timeline translates to indefinite displacement.

Precedent and Accountability

The destruction of entire civilian municipalities as a military strategy — rather than the targeting of specific military positions within them — sets a precedent with implications beyond Lebanon. The UN arms embargo on Lebanon, established under Security Council Resolution 1701 in 2006, prohibits arms transfers not authorized by the Lebanese government or UNIFIL [27]. But enforcement mechanisms for Israeli actions in Lebanon remain limited. No sanctions have been proposed against Israel in the Security Council, where the United States has consistently used its veto to block measures it views as one-sided.

Calls for Lebanon to join the ICC continue. An April 2026 Al Jazeera opinion piece and a Justice in Conflict analysis both argued that Lebanon's accession to the Rome Statute would open the door to accountability for crimes committed by all parties [14][28]. But domestic politics — including Hezbollah's own exposure to potential prosecution — have stalled progress.

UNIFIL's mandate was renewed in 2025 under Resolution 2769 [27], but the peacekeeping force's ability to prevent or document destruction has been constrained. Multiple incidents of Israeli forces firing on UNIFIL positions were reported during the ground operation [19].

The enforcement vacuum leaves a situation in which documented destruction of civilian infrastructure at an unprecedented scale proceeds without formal legal consequence for any party. Whether this represents a failure of international institutions or a reflection of geopolitical realities — or both — will shape how future belligerents calculate the costs of similar operations.

What Remains

More than a year after the ceasefire, satellite imagery of southern Lebanon's border zone shows cleared earth where villages once stood. The 64,000 people still unable to return represent not just a humanitarian statistic but the erasure of communities — some with histories stretching back centuries — from the physical landscape.

The questions raised by this campaign remain unresolved: whether the destruction was proportionate to the military threat, whether it constituted collective punishment, whether reconstruction will ever reach the communities that need it, and whether any institution has the capacity or political will to enforce accountability. The answers will be determined not just in courtrooms and council chambers, but in the rubble-strewn landscape of southern Lebanon itself.