Israel to destroy 'all houses' near Lebanon border, defence minister says

Which has absolutely nothing to do with hardliners in Israel who believes that the Bible has promised them "All of the land up to the Litani river," which just so happens to coincide with what they announced they would conquer, and makes no distinction between a terrorist in a truck and literally every single Lebanese family that lives there, all of whom will have their homes demolished?

And then it becomes the staging ground for the next 10%, and then the next. And now hezbollah is based Syria so you know what that means.

Well, Lebanon isn't sovereign there, right? or Lebanon IS sovereign there and threw rockets at Israeli civilians.

Western country existing causes terrorist (not just extremist, terrorist) groups, funny that

Nah that’d expose their stupidity.

Left completely in 2000, left again in 2006?

Ethnic Cleansing 101

By that same measure, you shouldn't have any issue with the Lebanese, should you? After all: "most Lebanese prefer the lives and property of Lebanese civilians over Israeli civilians, keep acting shocked. If Israel did their job and not elect far right extremists who fire at Lebanon this wouldn't be happening." It seems to me there is not an ounce of self awareness that all of the defenses here for Israelis apply just as much to the Lebanese. Which I shouldn't be surprised by, given how little regard Israelis seem to have for considering their adversaries even humans.

Refrain from war crimes for starters.

Israel has ratified all four of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. This means it has formally agreed to: - Protecting Civilians: The Fourth Geneva Convention, which specifically prohibits the "wanton destruction" of civilian property and homes unless absolutely demanded by military necessity. - Treatment of Prisoners: The Third Geneva Convention regarding the humane treatment of prisoners of war. - Wounded and Sick: The First and Second Conventions regarding the protection of medical personnel and wounded soldiers. Israel's Supreme Court has also ruled that Customary International Law is binding on the state, even without a specific treaty signature, which includes both - The Hague Regulations (1907): These early rules of war prohibit the seizure or destruction of enemy property unless imperatively demanded by the necessities of war. Israel accepts these as binding customary law. - Principles of Distinction and Proportionality: Israel acknowledges it must distinguish between combatants and civilians and that any attack must not cause "excessive" civilian harm relative to the military advantage. Now these cover a lot, but most relevant to this topic are: - Distinction & Necessity: Homes are civilian objects and protected, unless "imperatively demanded" by military necessity (e.g., used as a military position). - Proportionality: Attacks are illegal if civilian harm is excessive relative to the military advantage. - Presumption: In doubt, homes are presumed to be civilian, not military. You said above: > this is a very common example where your suggestion for what Israel should do is very unrealistic and is not something that has happened throughout history Israel is not being held to any different standard than other state-level actors, and in this case Israel is being asked to abide by the rules of international conflict they have already agreed to.