In November 2025, nearly 30 simultaneous fires broke out across southern Lebanon.This prompted locals to raise urgent questions about accountability, state negligence, and “external” intentions. Especially given the sheer number of fires recorded after the ceasefire agreement, with more than 7,700 incidents documented this season alone. Residents and experts report that Israel ignited sudden fires across the natural landscapes of Al-Aishiya, Jarmaq, Reyhan, and Aramta as a deliberate “weapon of war.”
Lebanon fires
During the last days of the war, and even after the November 2024 ceasefire agreement, Al-Houjeir Valley — an area synonymous with Hezbollah’s victory over Israel in the July 2006 war, where a Merkava tank battalion suffered heavy losses — was subjected to widespread environmental destruction. The natural reserve, once rich with forests, greenery, and olive groves, suffered deliberate damage by the Israeli military. By uprooting trees and carving trenches across roads, Israeli forces turned the valley from a touristic, ecologically rich space into a scorched dead zone.
The Israeli destruction of the valley affected vegetation on a massive scale. Israeli air raids pounded the valley repeatedly, and bulldozers ripped through its green spaces, collapsing the ecosystem and poisoning soil, water sources, and wildlife. These details were confirmed in May 2025 by the mayor of Burj Qalawiya and head of the crisis cell in the Union of Municipalities of Jabal Amel, Muhammad Nour El-Din.
The targeting of forests and fertile land represents a calculated assault on Lebanon’s environmental, food, and water security. Multiple assessments and monitoring groups report widespread environmental harm in southern Lebanon: destroyed agricultural land and fisheries, damaged water infrastructure, toxic rubble and hazardous debris, loss of forests and wildlife habitat, and long-term degradation of natural services.
South Lebanon Ecocide
There is growing evidence that Israel’s bombardment of southern Lebanon amounts to a systematic environmental destruction that some legal and environmental experts argue could be classified as ecocide. A detailed scoping report by the Conflict and Environment Observatory (CEOBS) documents Israel’s use of white phosphorus munitions, which ignited large fires across agricultural lands, killing vegetation, forests, and wildlife — and leaving soil contaminated with phosphoric acid that may leach into water sources. CEOBS stresses that such fire damage is not incidental; it has long-term consequences for soil structure, nutrient cycles, and ecosystem recovery. The observatory also estimates that at least ~462 hectares of woodland and orchard burned. The UNDP’s consolidated damage assessment states that: 2,193 hectares affected (≈1,917 ha forest + 275 ha farmland) — a figure reported in the UNDP’s post-war assessment.
Ecocide, in literal terms, means the “killing of our home.” The word comes from the Greek oikos (house) and the Latin caedere (to kill). It refers to extensive damage, destruction, or loss of ecosystems that severely reduces, or will reduce, the inhabitants’ ability to enjoy their territory in peace. The Journal of International Criminal Justice, published by Oxford University Press, notes in its research paper “Damage to and Destruction of the Natural Environment: Terraforming Warfare in Gaza and Accountability for Ecocentric Crimes” that:
We acknowledge that the absence of a discrete ecocentric crime (called ‘ecocide’ by some proponents) constitutes a significant lacuna in international criminal law.
The article uses Gaza’s environmental devastation as its main example and makes clear that Israel has carried out the same tactics in southern Lebanon.
Simultaneously, a UN–FAO assessment estimates that Lebanon’s agriculture sector—especially in the south—sustained US$118 million in damages and US$586 million in losses, affecting crops, livestock, forestry, and fisheries. Such numbers reflect not only immediate wartime harm, but the long-term destabilization of rural and agricultural life.
Why is Israel doing this? Put simply, the aim appears to be preventing any form of sustainable life in southern Lebanon—creating an uninhabitable buffer zone, undermining agricultural resilience, and paving the way for future occupation-driven strategies.
Deliberate environmental annihilation
Local environmental groups report that more than 800 fires in southern Lebanon since October 2023 were linked to phosphorus use, burning through millions of square meters of farmland, including olive groves, and raising serious concerns over soil and water contamination.
Ecocide has thus emerged as a systematic strategy. Beyond the destruction of homes and infrastructure, Israel’s attacks in southern Lebanon exhibit patterns consistent with deliberate environmental annihilation — what many experts categorize as “ecocide,” as defined above. The repeated targeting of agricultural lands, olive groves, orchards, pastures, and forested areas has transformed once-fertile border villages—and even areas farther inland, such as the outskirts of Nabatieh (25 km from the border) and Tyre (16 km)—into contaminated, burned-out zones unfit for cultivation or habitation.
White phosphorus bombardments have scorched thousands of acres, poisoning soil, killing livestock, and rendering farmland unusable for years. Cluster munition contamination further endangers farmers and disrupts seasonal cycles crucial for rural livelihoods. Combined with the ignition of large wildfires, the killing of wildlife, and the long-term toxicity left behind, these attacks reflect a sustained pattern of environmental destruction — not accidental damage. In a region where agriculture is central to both economic survival and cultural identity, such devastation threatens the ecological balance of southern Lebanon for generations, making the question of whether Israel is committing ecocide not rhetorical, but urgent and legally consequential.
The repeated targeting of farmlands and forests, the toxic residue and contamination of soil and water, and the scale of the destruction reflect not collateral damage but a deliberate assault on Lebanon’s environment. This raises deeply troubling questions about whether Israel is wielding environmental harm as a weapon of war — not just for short-term military gains, but to uproot local communities and push long-term occupation strategies.
Featured image via author
This post was originally published on Canary.