Prime Minister Nawaf Salam condemned on Wednesday, 12 August, Israel’s « systematic destruction » in southern Lebanon, following a new series of demolitions of houses and public buildings. His accusations were reinforced on the same day by statements by Israel’s Defense Minister, Israel Katz, who claimed that the army was destroying « all houses » in the area controlled by its forces. Washington, for its part, recalled that a permanent Israeli military presence in southern Lebanon would be incompatible with the framework agreement signed at the end of June.
Controversy places destruction in southern Lebanon at the centre of the political process between Beirut and Israel. While the American-mediated agreement provides for a gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces, the deployment of the Lebanese Army and the disarmament of Hezbollah, demolition operations continue in several southern localities.
Nawaf Salam considers that such destruction cannot be justified by a general qualification of villages as military infrastructure. The head of government accused Israel of destroying homes, civilian infrastructure, administrative buildings and places of worship while preventing some of the displaced population from returning to its localities.
Suivez les principaux indicateurs économiques en temps réel.
Israel Katz’s statements accentuated the confrontation. On Wednesday in southern Lebanon, the Israeli Defense Minister announced that the troops would remain in a « security zone » and assumed the destruction of buildings in Israeli-controlled areas.
Nawaf Salam denounces « systematic destruction »
In its communiqué of 12 August, Nawaf Salam directly invoked international law and international humanitarian law. He believes that the « attacks, incursions, demolitions and systematic destruction of homes », together with the destruction of infrastructure, public buildings and places of worship, constitute a serious violation of the rules applicable to armed conflicts.
Above all, the Prime Minister rejects the Israeli justification that the magnitude of Hezbollah’s military infrastructure would treat entire sectors as military objectives. For Beirut, this interpretation erases the distinction between civilian infrastructure and facilities used for military purposes.
Salam believes that it is impossible to regard entire villages and towns as « military installations ». According to him, such a qualification cannot be used to justify their destruction, the displacement of their inhabitants and the long-term prohibition of their return.
This issue is now one of the main points of friction between Lebanon and Israel. Bombings have decreased sharply since the June arrangements, but controlled demolitions and explosions continue in several areas where the Israeli army maintains a land presence.
Israel Katz assumes the destruction of the houses
Nawaf Salam’s statement came the same day of a visit by Israel Katz to Israeli forces deployed in southern Lebanon. The Israeli minister defended the military strategy in the area and declared that the army continued to destroy the underground infrastructure attributed to Hezbollah.
He also used a much broader formulation by saying that the Israeli army was « destroying all houses » in the area concerned. Katz assured him that he had ordered the armed forces to arrange for an extended presence.
This is in line with a line already expressed by the Israeli minister since the beginning of the military campaign in 2026. In the spring, he announced that houses in some villages near the border would be destroyed in order to prevent Hezbollah from restoring military infrastructure near northern Israel.
The Israeli justification is based on the alleged use of houses, tunnels and other civilian facilities by Hezbollah. The Israeli army claims to want to dismantle the structures allowing the Shiite movement to re-establish itself near the border and believes that this action is necessary to ensure the security of northern Israeli localities.
The Lebanese government contests this logic when it leads to the razing of entire residential areas. It considers that the widespread destruction of civilian property cannot be equated with the neutralization of specific military objectives.
Zawtar al-Charqiyé: town hall, school and dispensary destroyed
On Wednesday, the controversy took on a particularly concrete dimension in Zawtar al-Sharqiyah, in southern Lebanon. According to the Lebanese Army, Israeli forces detonated several buildings in the area near one of the pilot areas provided for in the June agreement.
The military institution claims that the destruction affected the municipal building, a public school, a dispensary, a crèche and several houses. The National Information Agency also reported explosions by Israeli forces in various southern localities.
For Beirut, the destruction of such buildings reinforces questions about the systematic military qualification of the infrastructure in the area. A town hall, school or health centre shall normally be civilian in nature, unless military use meets the criteria laid down in the law of armed conflict.
The Lebanese army also argues that Israeli operations directly complicate its own deployment. The destruction of roads, buildings and public infrastructure reduces the possibility of restoring normal administration in areas where Beirut is supposed to gradually regain control.
Washington contests the idea of a permanent Israeli presence
Israel Katz’s statements also caused a significant American reaction. When asked about the announcement of an extended military presence in the « security zone », a State Department official recalled that Washington expected all parties to comply with the framework agreement reached at the end of June.
The United States stressed that Israel had stated that it did not support any territorial ambition in Lebanon. With this in mind, a permanent military presence in the south of the country would not be compatible with the commitments provided for in the agreement or with the objective of lasting security on both sides of the border.
The American position is important because Washington is the main mediator of the ongoing process. The 26 June agreement is based on a series of steps designed to restore the authority of the Lebanese State in the south while addressing Israeli security concerns.
It includes the disarmament of Hezbollah, the gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces and the deployment of the Lebanese Army. Its implementation must start in « pilot areas » before it is gradually extended.
A sustainable Israeli settlement would therefore contradict one of the pillars of the mechanism. Similarly, Israel considers that a withdrawal cannot be separated from verifiable guarantees on the dismantling of Hezbollah’s military capabilities in the areas concerned.
June agreement tested in the field
The dispute shows the growing difficulties between the text of the agreement and the reality observed in the south. The violence has decreased sharply since the conclusion of the American-Iranian memorandum and the Lebanese-Israeli arrangement of June, but it has not completely ceased.
Specific Israeli strikes continue to be reported. In areas under Israeli army control, demolitions are also continuing. For Lebanon, this situation prevents the creation of the necessary conditions for the return of the inhabitants and the resumption of normal administrative life.
Israel believes that the dismantling of Hezbollah infrastructure must precede any return to the previous situation. Its officials claim that a withdrawal without the removal of tunnels, weapons depots, positions and other installations of the movement would risk recreating the pre-war threat.
This difference in interpretation puts the tuning under tension. Beirut considers the Israeli withdrawal and the return of the State to be indispensable for the implementation of the text. Israel further links its withdrawal to the results achieved in disarmament and the disappearance of any military presence of Hezbollah.
The Lebanese Army exposes its difficulties to General Clearfield
The continuation of destruction was also central to the discussions held on Wednesday between the Lebanese Army Commander, General Rodolphe Haykal, and General Joseph Clearfield. The latter leads the military coordination group responsible for monitoring several aspects of the implementation of arrangements concluded under United States mediation.
Both officers reviewed the situation in the south and the security arrangements provided for in the agreement. The Lebanese Army has mainly presented the difficulties it faces in carrying out its missions, highlighting the continuation of Israeli attacks, land levelling and destruction.
This issue directly affects the credibility of the mechanism. The deployment of the army requires not only the presence of its units, but also the existence of roads, administrative buildings, military positions and infrastructure allowing the return of the State to heavily damaged areas.
General Clearfield also met with President Joseph Aoun at the Baabda Palace. Discussions focused on the implementation of the Framework Agreement and the conditions necessary for the continuation of the process.
Destruction becomes an issue in negotiations
The extent of the damage in the south had already become a political subject before Nawaf Salam’s statements. A survey published this week using Lebanese satellite images and data describes destruction of entire localities, agricultural land and civilian infrastructure.
The Lebanese National Council for Scientific Research estimates that dozens of localities and agricultural sectors are in the area controlled by Israel and that several hundred thousand inhabitants remain prevented from returning. However, damage assessments remain incomplete in areas that are not freely accessible to the Lebanese authorities.
Israel defends these operations in the name of the military necessity and destruction of Hezbollah’s capabilities. International law experts stress, however, that destruction of civilian property must meet specific military necessity criteria and cannot be based solely on the assumption that a building could later be used by an armed group.
The disagreement therefore directly joins that expressed by Nawaf Salam: Beirut rejects the possibility of assigning a collective military character to entire villages to justify their destruction.
An eighth round of negotiations planned in Rome
This confrontation comes at a time when Lebanon and Israel must continue negotiations under American mediation. An eighth round of discussions is scheduled for next month in Rome. It will have to deal with the implementation of the agreement, the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the security arrangements to prevent the rebuilding of Hezbollah’s military capabilities in the south.
However, Israel Katz’s remarks complicate the Lebanese position before this new deadline. Beirut considers that a lasting occupation and the destruction continued after the agreement are incompatible with the negotiated process. Washington has now publicly recalled that a permanent Israeli military presence would not match the commitments made.
On the ground, the issue remains immediate for displaced people. The new explosions reported in Zawtar al-Sharqiyah and other localities show that the decline in fighting has not yet brought the demolitions to an end, while the Lebanese Army must extend its presence in the areas covered by the agreement.
