catastrophe

Displaced Lebanese families ‘living in constant fear’ under Israeli bombardment, warns UN Refugee Agency official.

Lebanon faces the threat of a “humanitarian catastrophe”, the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNHCR) has warned, as Israel expands its weeks-long bombardment and ground invasion of the country.

UNHCR’s Lebanon representative Karolina Lindholm Billing said on Friday that Israeli strikes and forced displacement orders have affected people living across the country – from southern Lebanon to the Bekaa Valley, the capital Beirut, and further north.

More than 1.2 million people have been forced from their homes since Israel’s intensified attacks against its northern neighbour began in early March, according to UN figures.

“The situation remains extremely worrying and the risk of a humanitarian catastrophe … is real,” Lindholm Billing told reporters during a briefing in Geneva.

She noted that, as displacement numbers continue to rise, Lebanon’s already overstretched shelter system is struggling to meet families’ needs.

“Just last week, there were strikes that hit central Beirut, including in densely populated neighbourhoods … where many people had tried to find safety in collective shelters,” Lindholm Billing said.

“The families are … living in constant fear, and the psychological toll, particularly on children, will last far beyond this current escalation.”

Israel launched intensified attacks across Lebanon after Hezbollah fired rockets towards Israeli territory following the February 28 assassination of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in the US-Israel war on Iran.

The Israeli military has carried out aerial and ground attacks across the country while issuing mass forced displacement orders for residents of the country’s south, as well as several suburbs of Beirut.

On Friday afternoon, the Israeli military said it had begun a wave of air strikes on Beirut. It also issued more forced displacement orders for several areas in the city’s southern suburbs, including the neighbourhoods of Haret Hreik and Burj al-Barajneh.

Hezbollah has continued to fire rockets into northern Israel and confront Israeli troops in southern Lebanon, with leader Naim Qassem stressing this week that the group had no plans to stop fighting “an enemy that occupies land and continues daily aggression”.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also announced plans to expand the country’s ground invasion in southern Lebanon, saying the military would create “a larger buffer zone” in Lebanese territory.

Rights groups have condemned the expanded operation and warned that preventing Lebanese civilians from returning to their homes in the south may amount to the war crime of forced displacement.

“Israel’s tactics of mass expulsion in Lebanon raise serious risks of forced displacement,” Human Rights Watch said on Thursday. “Forced displacement and collective punishment are war crimes.”

The Israeli military’s destruction of civilian homes and several bridges linking southern Lebanon to the rest of the country has also fuelled concerns that Israel is trying to isolate the area.

During Friday’s news briefing, UNHCR’s Lindholm Billing noted that the destruction of the bridges has made accessing southern Lebanon “increasingly difficult”.

“The destruction of key bridges in the south has cut off entire districts … isolating over 150,000 people and severely limiting humanitarian access with essential items to reach them,” she said.

Reporting from Tyre in southern Lebanon on Friday afternoon, Al Jazeera’s Obaida Hitto also stressed that Israel’s forced evacuation orders are “causing a lot of panic” among residents.

“Evacuation orders are happening in areas that were previously thought to be safe,” he said, adding that the destruction and damage to bridges over the Litani River in the south has made the prospect of finding safety more difficult.

“This is putting the government in Beirut in a very difficult situation to try and respond to the humanitarian crisis quickly growing in the south of the country,” Hitto said.

In March 2003, a million people took to the streets of London to oppose the illegal invasion of Iraq. Seeing straight through the lie that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, protesters warned the British government in no uncertain terms: This action would trigger a spiral of misery, hatred and death.

More than 20 years on, most people now recognise the Iraq war for what it was: a catastrophic mistake that fuelled a string of subsequent conflicts and instability. The United Kingdom had followed the United States into an illegal war – and more than a million Iraqi men, women and children paid the price.

Unfortunately, not everybody has learned the lessons from the past. It has been almost a month since the US and Israel launched their attacks on Iran. More than 1,400 Iranians and more than 1,000 Lebanese people have been killed.

In seeking to justify the bombing, US President Donald Trump spoke of the need to eliminate “imminent threats from the Iranian regime”, whose “menacing activities directly endanger the United States, our troops, our bases overseas and our allies throughout the world”. He said the goal was to make sure Iran “will never have a nuclear weapon”. Sound familiar?

The first casualty of war is the truth, so let us get the facts straight: These are lies that have been peddled to justify an illegal and unprovoked war. As the National Counterterrorism Center Director, Joe Kent, said in his resignation letter last week, Iran “posed no imminent threat to our nation” and that it was “clear that [the US] started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby”.

There is only one nuclear-armed state in the Middle East: Israel. Next month’s UN Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons would have been the perfect place to call for an end to the nuclear arms race. A diplomatic solution was possible, but the US and Israel chose war instead. In doing so, they have jeopardised the safety of humankind around the world. So, too, have those nations that have decided to lend support to their war of aggression.

Shortly after the attacks on Iran began, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer gave the US permission to use British military bases for strikes on Iranian missile sites. Last week, his government agreed to let the US use British bases to strike Iranian sites targeting the Strait of Hormuz.

The UK could have followed in the footsteps of Spain and said, “No way, absolutely not. We will not be involved in this illegal war in any way whatsoever.” Instead, it has dragged itself into another catastrophic conflict.

Astonishingly, the prime minister still maintains that the British government is not involved – a line that has been regurgitated by many across our media. He says the UK is allowing its sites to be used only for “defensive” strikes. What nonsense.

The reality is, if a bomber takes off from Royal Air Force base Fairford and bombs targets in Iran, we are involved in that act of aggression. If civilians die, will their families stop mourning when they are told that they were bombed for “defensive purposes”? No matter how Starmer dresses it up, he cannot change the truth: The UK is directly involved in this war.

Mark my words: This is a historic mistake that jeopardises the safety of us all. That’s why, earlier this month, I tabled a bill in the House of Commons that would require parliamentary approval for any British involvement in military action. That includes the use of British bases by other nations.

So far, the prime minister has refused to pass this legislation. With no debate, no discussion and no vote, he is dragging Britain into another disastrous illegal war.

Just like with the invasion of Iraq in 2003, today, those of us who oppose the war on Iran are accused of giving succour to authoritarian regimes and leaders. Whatever one thinks of the governments of various places, there is no basis in law for an attack to bring about regime change. There is no basis in history that bombing from the sky would bring about human rights either.

Trump couldn’t care less about people’s human rights. Whether it’s in Iran, Venezuela or Cuba, he is interested in one thing and one thing only: seizing resources and political control around the world.

If the UK cares about international law, it would be standing up to Trump, not bending over backwards to appease him.

The story of US-led foreign interventions is a story of chaos, instability and misery. How many more of these catastrophic failures do we need before we learn the lesson? And what will it take for the UK to finally defend a consistent, ethical foreign policy based on international law, sovereignty and peace?

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.