Press TV, on Lebanon, 8 November 2026

3.0out of 10Minor

West Asia

Tap a highlight to see why it matters.2 findings

Israeli forces have shelled several towns and areas in southern Lebanon and carried out demolitions and launched raids, continuing their violations of the June ceasefire agreement. Lebanese news outlets reported on Sunday that Israeli forces carried out demolitions in southern Lebanon, including an explosion in the town of Zawtar al-Sharqiya, where Israeli troops also made incursions. A major explosion was also reported on the outskirts of Qantara following Israeli attacks, while artillery fire targeted the outskirts of Mayfadoun and the towns of Zibqin and al-Mansouri.

Separately, an Israeli drone dropped a bomb on a house in the town of Touline, although the airstrike caused no casualties. The latest developments followed further Israeli attacks on Saturday, when the occupying regime’s forces demolished buildings in Bani Hayyan and raided areas in Khiam. Artillery also struck Haddatha, while a shell directly hit a house in Aita al-Jabal as Israeli forces carried out raids in the town. Overnight, Israeli artillery also struck Nabatieh al-Fawqa, the outskirts of Haris and the al-Arish area between Haris and Haddatha, as well as Wadi Slouqi and the outskirts of Majdal Selm.

On Friday, artillery fire targeted 15 towns, including residential areas, homes and olive groves, while Israeli forces carried out large explosions in six towns and dropped sound bombs in two others. Israeli troops also fired heavy machine guns toward the outskirts of al-Mansouri and Bayut al-Sayyad south of Tyre. Israel launched its aggression against Lebanon on March 2, killing and wounding thousands of people and forcing more than one million residents from their homes.

Lebanon’s Health Ministry said on November 5 that Israeli attacks since March 2 had killed 4,390 people and wounded 12,429 others. The International Organization for Migration (IOM) recorded 304,520 people still internally displaced in Lebanon as of October 28. In late June, Lebanon and Israel reached a US-mediated following several rounds of direct negotiations in Washington, with the stated objective of ending the war.

The framework agreement itself is deeply flawed, imposing obligations on Lebanon, such as the disarmament of the resistance group Hezbollah and refraining from international legal action against Israel, . Israeli forces, however, have continued their attacks and expanded their presence in southern Lebanon, while Washington has pressured the Lebanese government to disarm the resistance.

Read the original article on presstv.co.uk (opens in a new tab)
What we found (2)

Press TV names Israeli forces as the actor in each shelling, demolition and raid it reports, and gives the Lebanese Health Ministry's toll plainly. In its own voice, though, it tells the reader that the June framework agreement offered Israel no meaningful commitments. Other reports of the same events say the deal provides for a phased Israeli withdrawal, and the article never mentions that.

  1. States one side's claim as fact

    Minor

    “while offering Israel no meaningful commitments in return”

    Why this matters
    Press TV states in its own voice, with no attribution, that the framework agreement offered Israel "no meaningful commitments in return".
    The impression it gives
    A reader comes away believing the June deal placed no obligation on Israel at all, and that only Lebanon was bound by it.
    The context
    Other reports of the same events say the deal provides for a gradual Israeli withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territory in exchange for the deployment of the Lebanese army. Press TV never mentions this withdrawal commitment. Its own opening sentence calls the shelling "violations of the June ceasefire agreement", which only makes sense if Israel had obligations under the deal. Whether those commitments count as meaningful is a judgement, and the article gives it as fact.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

  2. Uses a loaded word

    Minor

    “so-called “framework agreement””

    Why this matters
    Press TV puts "so-called" and scare quotes around the agreement's own name in its news voice.
    The impression it gives
    A reader is told to treat the agreement's name as a pretence before being given any of its terms.
    The context
    "Framework agreement" is the deal's name, used plainly by other outlets reporting the same events. The article's later verdict that the deal is "deeply flawed" is also given in the outlet's own voice rather than attributed to anyone.

    How we know

    Show it in the article

How other outlets reported it

Spot something we missed? Report this article

More from Press TV

Everything we scored from Press TV