Flames and smoke rise in an area targeted by an Israeli air strike on Beirut’s southern suburbs, on October 6.
Fadel Itani/AFP/Getty Images
We were preparing to go live on air when the first airstrike hit the southern suburbs of Beirut shortly after 11 p.m. Saturday – kicking off a night of intense and constant Israeli strikes.
About 30 minutes earlier, I had been sat with a young woman who lives in the southern suburbs, when our phones flashed with a post on X. It was from the Arabic-language spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces, issuing new evacuation orders for several neighborhoods ahead of what he said would be strikes on Hezbollah targets.
The woman gasped. Her family’s home was within one of the evacuation zones. Like many residents of one of the most densely populated parts of the country, she had fled her home as Israeli strikes intensified in recent days, leaving with very little.
Hours earlier she had wanted to go back home to grab some warm clothes, as winter is approaching. But even during the day a return to the suburbs would have been dangerous, so she decided to take the advice of colleagues and not return home. And as feared, there were multiple strikes with no prior warning.
Saturday night’s strikes were among the most sustained and intense I have witnessed hitting the southern suburbs since this war began. First we heard rumbling sounds, followed by flashes in the distance. Then we heard the blasts. At least two of the strikes triggered what appeared to be secondary explosions – balls of fire that at times would light the night sky, accompanied by blasts that echoed across the city.
Amid the explosions came another evacuation order and another IDF post on X saying it is “currently targeting Hezbollah terrorist targets in the Beirut area.”
Many people I have spoken to over the past 10 days do not believe statements about “targeted” and “precise” strikes. They fear this war is going to be as destructive as the war in Gaza, that reduced much of the enclave to rubble and killed more than 41,000 people.
As I am writing this at 3:30 a.m., I hear another big blast rattle the windows of my hotel room. I can still hear the constant buzz of Israeli drones over the city – usually an indication of more strikes to come – and I can’t help but think of the people of Beirut who have been through so much for so long.
How many casualties are there? Did people evacuate in time? How are parents comforting their children during this long and terrifying night?
Is that young woman’s house still standing?
**In light of the recent escalation in violence between Israel and Lebanon, particularly the intense Israeli airstrikes hitting southern Beirut, one compelling question for debate could be:**
In light of the recent escalation in violence between Israel and Lebanon, particularly the intense Israeli airstrikes hitting southern Beirut, one compelling question for debate could be:
“To what extent should Israel’s military actions in Lebanon, targeting areas associated with Hezbollah, be justified in the context of national security versus the humanitarian impact on civilian populations?”
This question opens a discussion on the balance between a nation’s right to defend itself against perceived threats and the moral responsibilities regarding civilian safety and humanitarian concerns. On one side, proponents of Israel’s actions may argue that military strikes are necessary for national security and in response to provocations from Hezbollah, which has been accused of firing projectiles into Israeli territory [2[2[2[2[2[2[2[2]. They may contend that eliminating military targets is essential for long-term peace and safety.
Conversely, critics of these actions could emphasize the severe humanitarian costs, as seen by the damage inflicted on densely populated civilian areas, the evacuation of families, and the lack of adequate measures to protect non-combatants <a href="https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2024/10/06/intense-israeli-bombing-rocks-beirut-as-lebanon-pm-urges-pressure-on-israel-for-ceasefire67283824.html”>[3[3[3[3[3[3[3[3]. They might argue that such military operations exacerbate human suffering and violate the principles of proportionality and distinction in international humanitarian law.
This debate could further explore potential alternatives to military action, including diplomatic solutions and international mediation, and the implications of ongoing violence for regional stability.
Based on the geopolitical context and historical significance of the Israel-Hezbollah conflict, here is a PAA-related question you can explore for the title:
Nd groups affiliated with Hezbollah, be justified in the context of self-defense versus potential violations of international law?”
This question invites a thorough examination of the complex geopolitical landscape of the region, the historical context of Israel-Lebanon relations, and the humanitarian implications of military actions in densely populated areas. As the conflict intensifies, analyzing the balance between national security and the preservation of civilian lives becomes crucial in understanding and debating the legitimacy of such military operations.
Key points for discussion could include:
- Self-Defense Argument: Exploring Israel’s justification of targeting Hezbollah, considered a terrorist organization by Israel and several other countries, in response to perceived threats against its citizens.
- International Law Considerations: Evaluating how these military actions align with international humanitarian law, particularly regarding civilian protection and the principle of proportionality.
- Human Impact: Assessing the humanitarian consequences of airstrikes in civilian areas, including potential casualties, displacement, and long-term infrastructural damage.
- Alternatives to Military Action: Discussing whether diplomatic efforts or other non-military strategies may offer viable solutions to the ongoing conflict.
- Public Opinion and Regional Stability: Considering how these actions may affect public perception of Israel both domestically and internationally, and their repercussions for broader regional stability.
By delving into these areas, the debate can foster a comprehensive understanding of the moral, legal, and practical ramifications of military actions in conflict zones like southern Beirut.
