Satellite imagery and videos show widespread destruction in six villages along Lebanon’s southern border with Israel, revealing 1,085 buildings that have been leveled or badly damaged since its Oct. 1 invasion aimed at crippling the militant group Hezbollah.Videos posted to social media by the Israeli military and individual soldiers, and verified by The Times, show that at least 200 of the buildings were blown up in controlled demolitions, in which soldiers place and then remotely detonate explosives. Controlled demolitions were seen in five of the six towns: Blida, Kafr Kila, Mhaibib, Ramyah and Aita al Shaab. It couldn’t be determined how other buildings were damaged.
They then quote an international law expert:
Tom Dannenbaum, an associate professor of international law at Tufts University, said that nonmilitary structures may be targeted only if they are being used militarily, or if Israel has specific information that they are intended to be used that way. “It is not permitted to target an entire area in which there is a mix of military objectives and civilian objects,” he said.
Dannenbaum is (mostly) right. And from reading the article, it sounds like Israel is blowing up buildings indiscriminately.
But the New York Times asked Dannenbaum a loaded question, one that doesn't reflect reality.
The video that the NYT publishes of the controlled demolition of part of Ramyeh shows a spectacular set of explosions that seem to destroy much of the town.
The NYT says 40 buildings were destroyed. But Ramyeh has between 100-150 buildings.
Clearly, Israel chose only to destroy some and not the others. Why might that be?
The Times mentions other villages and towns hard-hit by demolitions:
The most severe destruction has been in the town of Meiss al-Jabal, which had a prewar population of aIn Aita al-Shaab, satellite imagery shows at least 206 buildings were destroyed, virtually flattening the entire eastern part of the village.In Kafr Kila, the largest of the six communities that The Times analyzed, with a prewar population of about 10,000, at least 284 buildings were badly damaged or destroyed.The small village of Mhaibib was also almost entirely destroyed in a controlled demolition, videos show. Satellite imagery shows that at least 76 buildings were destroyed, and only a few structures were still standing.
Elsewhere in the article, the Times gives a hint as to why Israel may have targeted specific sections of those areas,, but doesn't link that reason it to the demolitions:
In statements posted to social media, the Israeli military said that troops had found and destroyed Hezbollah tunnels underneath homes and other buildings in Meiss al-Jabal, Kafr Kila and Mhaibib, and under a hill in Aita al Shaab. It wasn’t possible to independently verify whether footage of tunnels was filmed in those towns. The Israeli military has also posted footage of tunnels it says were discovered elsewhere along the Lebanon-Israel border.
But this is only the tip of the iceberg of context that the NYT doesn't want readers to grasp.
The Times of Israel described what IDF soldiers are seeing in these villages that they are clearing:
Asked in how many homes his men have found weapons, Sebag responds that “in these villages it’s not just one or two houses, it’s all of the village. These are villages that are strongly identified with Hezbollah. In almost every home there are weapons and signs of identification with the organization.”His men agree, with one telling The Times of Israel that they had found rifles on tables in many houses, ready for use and that weapons were even found in the village’s school and medical clinic.
If a house is used to store weapons, it is a military target. No question.
Now, if the newspaper would have asked the international law expert whether Israel can destroy tunnels underneath buildings, and buildings that have entrances to tunnels, and houses that have weapons ready to be used on their kitchen tables, and buildings like schools and medical clinics that are actually weapons depots, guess what he would have said?
Of course they can, because placing weapons in civilian structures turn them into military installations, under international law.
But the question was not framed that way. It was deliberately asked and answered in a way to make Israel look like it was likely violating international law.
There is another piece of context that the Times elliptically refers to but still obfuscates.
Here is its map of the villages it is discussing:
The entire villages are obviously Hezbollah strongholds and meant to be used to invade Israel. The villages themselves were weaponized, not just certain buildings. These villages were specifically chosen by Hamas as ideal areas to stage October 7-type massacres of Israeli communities.
Can the entire villages be flattened under international law? Given what we saw Hamas do last year, a strong case could be made for that.
The Times did not tell its readers all the facts that would be relevant in determining the law, and it is hard to say that this was not deliberate.
