Israeli Chemical Spraying in Southern Lebanon… the State Settles for Documenting Violations

The Israeli army continues its attacks on southern Lebanon by spraying chemical substances and toxic herbicides over border areas, in a dangerous move aimed at displacing residents and causing widespread destruction to the environment and agriculture in the south, amid the absence of any firm response from the Lebanese state—no summoning of the guarantor ambassadors of the ceasefire agreement, no suspension of negotiations, and not even a field response by the Lebanese army.

This operation coincided with similar actions carried out by the Israeli army along the Syrian border adjacent to the occupied Golan Heights, pointing to a systematic approach that relies on environmental destruction as a security and military tool across border areas.

As the gravity of these actions escalates, the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced that it has begun documenting Israeli violations involving the spraying of toxic substances and pesticides on agricultural lands and orchards in several southern villages. The ministry said it is coordinating with the Ministries of Environment, Agriculture, and Health, under directives from President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, to prepare a comprehensive legal file documenting what it described as “serious violations.”

The current attack is not the first of its kind. Israel has previously used internationally prohibited weapons against Lebanon, most notably toxic white phosphorus munitions. Lebanese authorities have documented and submitted official complaints to the UN Security Council since the outbreak of confrontations on October 8, 2023, through the 66-day war that ended with a ceasefire brokered by the United States and France—without any real accountability.

Meanwhile, Israel’s Channel 15 reported, citing security sources in the Israeli army, that the chemical spraying aims to eliminate vegetation cover near the border fence, under the pretext of preventing armed individuals or “undesirable persons” from approaching the border—justification that reflects a policy of collective punishment and systematic destruction of land and livelihoods.

In light of this reality, unanswered questions continue to mount:

Why does Lebanon not suspend its commitment to an agreement that is violated daily?

Why does it not formally protest to the states sponsoring the agreement instead of settling for documentation statements?

Who will stop these violations, and who bears responsibility for protecting the south and its people before it is too late?

Is Lebanon expected merely to record crimes—or to defend its sovereignty before the south is turned into an environmental and humanitarian disaster zone?