Since the onset of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon last month, there has been extensive debate regarding the efficacy of Israel’s two-front strategy, particularly in the context of the ongoing conflict in Gaza, the implications for civilian safety, and the potential for escalation into a broader regional conflict involving Iran. A fundamental question remains about the legality of Israel’s military actions under international law. Israel asserts its right to self-defense, citing a year of rocket attacks launched by Hezbollah from Lebanese territory. However, critics argue that the legality of Israel’s actions is complex and subjective. Hugh Lovatt, an international law expert, remarked, “Legality is very much in the eye of the beholder,” highlighting the ongoing debate about the balance between Israel’s right to self-defense and Lebanon’s sovereignty. Other legal experts point out that self-defense must be exercised within certain boundaries, emphasizing that it is not an unlimited right. The determination of the invasion's legality is complicated by varying interpretations of international law. Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force while Article 51 recognizes the right to self-defense against armed attacks. The situation is further complicated by the fact that Lebanon is a sovereign state, yet Israel is engaged in conflict with Hezbollah, classified as both a militant group and a government entity by various international actors. The historical context of the conflict includes the founding of Hezbollah in the 1980s and subsequent confrontations, notably the 2006 war. Following the terrorist attacks by Hamas on October 7, Hezbollah intensified its rocket attacks on Israel, leading to reciprocal military actions and a significant toll on civilians in both Israel and Lebanon. Over 150,000 people have been displaced from their homes across the border. Some legal experts argue that Israel's military response is justified based on Hezbollah's use of Lebanese territory to launch attacks. Israeli law professors Amichai Cohen and Yuval Shany contend that Israel’s right to self-defense extends to actions against both Hezbollah and the Lebanese state due to the ongoing hostilities. However, the legal framework remains contentious, especially considering a 2006 Security Council resolution that prohibits foreign military intervention in Lebanon without government consent. Separately, international humanitarian law mandates the protection of civilians during conflicts. Experts note that even when military targets are situated in civilian areas, Israel has a legal obligation to minimize civilian casualties. Reports indicate that over 1,500 individuals have been killed in Lebanon since the invasion, raising serious concerns about compliance with humanitarian laws. The situation has prompted nearly one million people to flee their homes, creating a humanitarian crisis that parallels the situation in Gaza. Asserting accountability for violations of international law poses significant challenges. While the International Court of Justice can hear cases against states accused of treaty violations, any ruling would depend on compliance from the involved parties, which is often uncertain. The U.N. General Assembly could also seek resolutions, but its powers are limited in enforcing actions against member states. Ultimately, while enforcement of international law remains problematic, its existence provides a framework of moral standards aimed at civilian protection. Judge Ambos emphasized the importance of these legal mechanisms, stating that even if they are not effectively enforced, they still serve to hold states accountable for their actions.