Israeli aerial spraying of chemical substances over agricultural areas in southern Lebanon and Syria in early 2026 has drawn sharp criticism from Lebanese authorities, environmental groups, and international observers. Lebanon has condemned the operations as a violation of sovereignty and an “environmental and health crime,” citing laboratory analyses that detected unusually high concentrations of the herbicide glyphosate in soil samples from affected farmland.
The controversy centers on claims that herbicide spraying by Israeli aircraft targeted farmland and forested areas near the Blue Line border demarcation, damaging crops, threatening food production, and raising questions about possible violations of international humanitarian law and environmental protections.
Lebanese officials have announced plans to document the alleged damage and submit a complaint against Israel to the United Nations Security Council.
Details of the Alleged Spraying Operation and Immediate Reaction
Lebanese authorities reported that the spraying occurred on February 1, 2026, when Israeli military aircraft flew at low altitude over villages including Ras Naqoura and Aita al-Shaab in southern Lebanon, releasing a substance that residents and officials later identified as glyphosate, a widely used herbicide.
Initial laboratory analysis, conducted by Lebanon’s Environment and Agriculture Ministries and supported by samples collected with the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), found glyphosate concentrations “20 and 30 times higher than average.”
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun condemned the incident as a “flagrant violation of Lebanese sovereignty” and a crime against both the environment and public health, calling for diplomatic and legal measures to hold Israel accountable. Officials have emphasized concerns about soil contamination, loss of vegetation cover, and the broader implications for agricultural productivity and food security.
UNIFIL, which had been informed by the Israeli military about planned aerial activity described as involving a “non-toxic chemical substance,” said the spraying forced the peacekeeping force to shelter and suspend routine patrols for several hours. UNIFIL characterized the disruption as contrary to the peacekeeping framework established under UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended major hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah in 2006.
Environmental and Public Health Concerns
Glyphosate is a systemic herbicide commonly used in agriculture to control unwanted vegetation, but it has drawn scrutiny over potential health and environmental impacts. The World Health Organization’s cancer research agency classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015, and concerns persist about its effects on ecosystems, soil fertility, water quality, and human health.
Lebanese ministries have warned that the high concentrations of glyphosate found in soil samples could harm vegetation and soil structure, impair agricultural production for upcoming seasons, and pose risks to water resources and the food chain. Local farmers reported that vegetation began turning yellow within days of the spraying, indicating damage to crops and grazing lands.
The use of herbicides in a military context, especially over farmland and residential areas, amplifies concerns about long term environmental degradation and public health impacts, including effects on livestock, water wells, and human exposure. Critics argue that such operations can disrupt ecosystems, reduce biodiversity, and undermine the viability of agricultural communities that depend on stable soil and water resources.
Accusations of Legal Violations and International Law Implications
Critics, including the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor, have framed the spraying as a violation of international humanitarian law, arguing that the deliberate targeting of civilian agricultural land without clear military necessity may amount to a war crime. They contend that destroying vegetation and economic infrastructure essential to civilian survival undermines food security and habitual life.
Under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, deliberately launching an attack against civilian objects, including farmland, without imperative military necessity can constitute a war crime. Observers who characterize the spraying as “large-scale destruction of private property” suggest that international accountability mechanisms should investigate whether the conduct breaches these norms.
The Lebanese government’s effort to compile a legal file, including scientific analyses of environmental effects and documentation of affected areas, is aimed at presenting a formal case to the UN Security Council and other international bodies to challenge what it views as unlawful behavior. Officials have said they will coordinate inputs from the environment, agriculture, and health ministries to build a comprehensive dossier.
Israeli Government Response and Security Justifications
Israeli authorities have described aerial vegetation management operations near the border as routine security measures intended to remove dense vegetation that could provide cover for militant infiltration, asserting that the herbicides used are “approved substances.” However, detailed disclosures regarding the specific chemicals, their concentrations, or independent safety assessments have not been publicly provided.
Israeli statements to UNIFIL about planned aerial activity emphasized the labeling of the sprayed substance as “non-toxic,” yet the subsequent laboratory findings of elevated glyphosate challenge that characterization and have heightened scrutiny. Israeli officials have not directly addressed the allegations of ecocide or international legal violations.
Regional Context and Broader Impacts
This incident occurred against the backdrop of ongoing conflicts along the Israel-Lebanon border, despite a ceasefire agreement reached in late 2024 after years of hostilities. Repeated incidents of cross-border violence, including airstrikes and other military operations, have disrupted civilian life and hindered reconstruction efforts, leaving many communities economically and socially vulnerable.
The controversy over chemical spraying underscores broader debates about the boundaries of acceptable military conduct, civilian protection, and the environmental dimensions of modern conflicts. As Lebanon moves forward with its diplomatic and legal responses, the issue raises questions about how international law addresses the intersection of environmental harm, food security, and armed operations, and whether current mechanisms are adequate to prevent and remedy such impacts.
Related Allegations of Herbicide Spraying in Southern Syria
In the days surrounding the Lebanon incident, farmers and local officials in southern Syria also reported aerial spraying that damaged crops and vegetation in Quneitra-area farmland, with reports describing similar claims about herbicide use and visible burn-off patterns. Additional regional reporting has linked the Syria and Lebanon allegations as part of the same borderland practice, where vegetation clearance near demarcation lines becomes a security measure with civilian agricultural spillover.
Taken together, the Lebanon and Syria claims fit a trend the UN has already flagged in Lebanon: herbicide spraying can complicate civilian return and long-term livelihoods even when the stated rationale is operational security.
