This photo montage made on Sep. 11, 2026 shows the Ali Taher ridge, in southern Lebanon, on Sep. 7, 2026 (left), and the aftermath of an Israeli demolition carried out on Sep. 10, 2026, which caused a seismic tremor of magnitude 4.1. (Credit: AFP Photos)
Since the outbreak of war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon following the Gaza war in October 2023, concern about the environmental impact has typically focused on loss of vegetation cover, air pollution and fires. But what about the risk of contaminants from explosives used by the Israeli army and demolition waste seeping into the soil and, by extension, underground aquifers ? This question has become even more relevant following the massive Israeli demolition of underground tunnels Sept. 10 on the strategic Ali Taher ridge in the Nabatieh region of South Lebanon.
Ahmad el-Hajj, an expert and consultant in water resources and environmental issues, attempted to address this question. On Wednesday, he presented a study on the subject during a conference on the environmental consequences of the war at the Order of Engineers and Architects in Beirut, under the patronage of the Environment Ministry. He told L’Orient-Le Jour that, pending access to the field, he designed his study to identify vulnerable areas in the affected regions and help authorities determine where to prioritize monitoring and pollution remediation once the fighting ends.
Which geographic areas does the study cover?
It mainly covers areas occupied by the Israeli army south of the “yellow line”*, 63 villages covering 464 square kilometers, as well as neighboring villages, comprising 12 villages over 59 square kilometers.
Why talk about soil vulnerability instead of pollution?
Immediate pollution caused by wartime activities is inevitable, but the key question that will emerge later is whether its effects on soil and groundwater will be long-lasting. The idea behind this map is to identify areas particularly vulnerable to the deep infiltration of pollutants into the soil and groundwater, with potential long-term impacts on soil quality, water resources and agriculture. Sources of wartime pollution include substances released by explosions or munitions, the destruction of buildings and infrastructure, vegetation fires, and the impact of craters and soil fragmentation.
What does high, medium or low soil vulnerability to pollution mean, concretely?
The aim is to determine the extent to which soil at a given site is exposed to deep infiltration of pollutants and, therefore, to the risk of long-term contamination. For example, if the subsoil is protected by a layer of marl, it will be impermeable, and pollutants will have difficulty penetrating deeply. Even after strikes, it will remain relatively protected. Conversely, if the soil is karstic and the rock is naturally fractured, it will be significantly more vulnerable to war-related pollution, including groundwater contamination, toxic exposure in living organisms and ecosystems, accumulation of pollutants in the food chain, and health risks to humans.
What are your definitive results?
The map I developed, taking into account vegetation cover, soil type, geological data and local hydrology, shows that 13.16 percent of land in the war zone, whether occupied or not, is highly vulnerable to pollution from explosions and bombardments, while 70.95 percent has moderate vulnerability and 15.88 percent has low vulnerability. In most cases, therefore, fears of long-term pollution are not justified.
What about areas subjected to a high number of daily explosions, such as Mansouri (Sour), for example?
Regardless of the strength of the explosion or the number of detonations, if the soil has a protective layer, the worst-case scenario can be avoided. Even if it rains, pollutants from wartime activities that land on the soil will be carried to the sea by runoff without deeply infiltrating the ground.
What are the implications for the future?
Determining soil vulnerability has crucial social, economic and political implications for residents of the South, many of whom are farmers who will be expected to return to their region after the war. If Lebanese consumers believe that all soils in the South are polluted, farmers and producers in the area will be disadvantaged. This map helps more precisely identify which locations are most at risk.
As for Lebanese authorities, they can use the scientific study to determine where to prioritize sampling and which tests to order. For example, if a region is at risk, analyses should not be limited to calcium, magnesium and sodium levels; greater attention should be paid to heavy metals. The infiltration rate also affects how long it takes for soil to recover: on average, one year for soils with low vulnerability, two to three years for those with moderate vulnerability, and five to 10 years for those with high vulnerability. This should therefore inform the measures taken once the war ends.
*The “yellow line” is the term used by Israel to refer to what it calls a “security zone” that it occupies in southern Lebanon, covering an area of more than 600 square kilometers.
