First since Ceasefire: Israel warns then strikes southern Lebanon
Shafaq News/ Israeli warplanes struck Toul District in Nabatiyeh on Thursday, marking the first time since the November 2024 ceasefire that Israel issued a public warning ahead of a targeted airstrike in southern Lebanon.
The Israeli military's spokesperson, Avichay Adraee, posted on X, urging civilians to evacuate an area near a specific building. According to Adraee, the targeted location was in proximity to facilities affiliated with Hezbollah.
Lebanese media confirmed the attack but reported no immediate casualties.
#عاجل 🔸تحذير عاجل للمتواجدين في قرية تول في جنوب لبنان وتحديدًا لكل من يتواجد في المبنى المحدد بالأحمر وفق ما يُعرض في الخارطة والمباني القريبة منه🔸تتواجدون بالقرب من منشآت تابعة لحزب الله الارهابي🔸من أجل سلامتكم وسلامة أبناء عائلاتكم, أنتم مضطرون لإخلاء هذه المباني فورًا… pic.twitter.com/epivtfrwX8
— افيخاي ادرعي (@AvichayAdraee) May 22, 2025
In a separate statement, Adraee announced that Israeli jets had also conducted an airstrike on a Hezbollah military site in Lebanon's eastern Bekaa Valley. The target reportedly contained rocket launch platforms and other combat equipment, following surveillance that detected Hezbollah activity at the location.
Thursday's developments come amid a marked escalation in Israeli military operations across Lebanon. The Toul strike was Israel's eighth reported airstrike in the country this week alone.
#عاجل 🔸أغارت طائرات حربية لجيش الدفاع قبل قليل على موقع عسكري احتوى على منصات صاروخية ووسائل قتالية لحزب الله في منطقة البقاع بعد ان تم رصد أنشطة لحزب الله داخل الموقع. 🔸كما تمت مهاجمة بنى تحتية ارهابية ومنصات قذائف وصواريخ تابعة لحزب الله في جنوب لبنان. 🔸وجود وسائل قتالية…
— افيخاي ادرعي (@AvichayAdraee) May 22, 2025
In addition to the aerial bombardments, drone attacks were reported on Thursday in the towns of Rabb Thalathin and al-Wazzani, resulting in at least one confirmed civilian death.
Earlier the same day, an Israeli drone targeted several prefabricated shelters in the border village of Mhaibib.
Since the ceasefire took effect in November 2024, the Lebanese authorities have documented more than 3,200 Israeli violations, with over 200 deaths and approximately 400 injuries recorded.
According to the terms of the ceasefire agreement, Israel was required to complete a full withdrawal from southern Lebanon by January 26. However, the deadline was extended to February 18 after Israel refused to comply. As of today, Israeli forces remain stationed at five military outposts along the border.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Shafaq News
42 minutes ago
- Shafaq News
Tehran: No evidence of nuclear deviation
Shafaq News/ On Saturday, Iran asserted that its nuclear program remains peaceful, while its military intensified drone strikes on Israeli targets. Foreign Ministry spokesperson Esmaeil Baqaei told Alaraby TV that Tehran's nuclear activities are legal, affirming, 'There is no evidence we've deviated from peaceful aims.' Baqaei accused Israel of obstructing diplomacy, insisting that Iran remains committed to dialogue. 'We never left the table.' Defending Tehran's recent military operations, Baqaei framed them as responses to Israeli aggression, warning that any US intervention would trigger a reaction 'in line with international law.' He also urged neighboring governments not to ignore what he described as Israel's destabilizing role in the region. Separately, Iran's military confirmed it had launched dozens of 'suicide drones ' in what it labeled the seventh and eighth phases of its aerial campaign, adding, 'Most drones reached their targets.' Tensions have escalated sharply since June 13, when Iran and Israel began openly trading daily missile and drone strikes. Despite mounting international pressure for de-escalation, both sides continue to exchange fire across multiple fronts.
Shafaq News
42 minutes ago
- Shafaq News
Red Sea alert: Houthis to target US ships if Washington backs Israel
Shafaq News/ On Saturday, Yemen's Ansarallah (Houthis) threatened to target the US interests in the Red Sea if Washington supports Israeli military operations against Iran. 'If the US involves in an attack and aggression against Iran with the Israeli enemy, the armed forces will target its ships and warships in the Red Sea,' the group wrote on X. The Houthis described Israel as 'the aggressor against Iran,' referencing previous operations in Gaza and current attacks on Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. It further accused Tel Aviv of seeking regional dominance, allegedly underwritten both openly and strategically by the United States. The movement explained that the objective of this project is to 'confiscate the freedom, independence, and dignity of our nation,' while also aiming to erode the region's identity, occupy land, exploit resources, and normalize violations of sacred sites and human life. The statement comes amid reports indicating that the United States is preparing to support Israel militarily in its confrontation with Iran. Tensions have sharply escalated following Israel's launch of Operation Rising Lion, a campaign of targeted strikes on Iranian military and nuclear sites. The operation has killed several senior commanders from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and several key nuclear scientists. Iran responded with True Promise 3, its most extensive direct attack on Israeli territory to date. The retaliatory operation has so far included 18 waves of missile and drone strikes.
Shafaq News
42 minutes ago
- Shafaq News
Expert: Trump offers Iran 'One Last Chance'
Shafaq News/ Tensions between the United States and Iran are intensifying, and President Donald Trump's recent two-week deadline to Tehran has raised fresh questions about the possibility of renewed diplomacy—or the onset of military confrontation. In an exclusive interview with Shafaq News, Thomas Warrick, a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council, offered key insights into what Trump's message truly means—and how Iran might respond. A Diplomatic Window, or a Final Warning? According to Warrick, the president's two-week deadline signals three distinct objectives: 'First, it's an opening to get diplomatic negotiations going with Tehran. Trump understands it will take time to bring Iran back to the table, but that's clearly his goal,' Warrick said. Secondly, Trump appears to be allowing time for additional US military assets to reach the region, enhancing the credibility of any threat of force. Warrick cited movements such as the USS Nimitz sailing toward the Arabian Sea and recent sightings of B-2 bombers likely headed toward Guam or Diego Garcia—capable platforms for delivering bunker-busting ordnance. The third element, Warrick noted, is political, 'He wants to show his base—and the world—that he's giving diplomacy one last chance before resorting to force. This is Trump trying to prove that any military action would only come after exhausting peaceful options.' A Flexible Deadline, Trump-Style When asked whether two weeks is enough to defuse the crisis, Warrick offered a nuanced perspective rooted in Trump's communication style. 'In Trump's language, 'two weeks' can mean anything. It could be three days, it could be never. There's a long history of him using this phrase ambiguously.' He added that Trump's spokesperson, Karoline Leavitt, had delivered the deadline in the form of a direct presidential quote, implying it came straight from the Oval Office. 'It's a flexible deadline. Not too far removed from Arabic 'Inshallah' or Spanish 'mañana.' But still, this is a serious offer of diplomacy,' Warrick explained. Military Posturing as Pressure Trump's decision to bolster US forces in the region isn't just precautionary—it's strategic. 'Trump is all about leverage. He wants Iran to know that he's not bluffing,' Warrick said. 'The presence of aircraft carriers and bombers capable of striking hardened nuclear facilities like Fordow sends a clear message: if diplomacy fails, force is on the table.' However, Warrick emphasized that Trump would still prefer a negotiated outcome, calling it his 'first option.' Iran at a Crossroads When asked about Iran's likely response, Warrick presented a stark choice facing Tehran's leadership: 'Option one: negotiate, dismantle the nuclear program, and see crippling sanctions lifted. Option two: lose the nuclear program through military strikes—and still face sanctions.' He concluded that Iran's leaders must decide whether to preserve national dignity at great cost or accept a diplomatic deal that could ease decades of economic suffering. 'Either way, they lose the nuclear program. But only one path gives something back to the Iranian people. From that perspective, it's in their interest to take Trump's offer.'
