According to intelligence analyst Sergio Bianchi, on March 29, 2026, a significant level of operational activity attributed to Hizbullah was recorded, totaling 74 operations with an estimated operational depth of up to 75 km, distributed between Lebanon (55) and Palestinian territories (19).

Reported targets include bunkers, fortified positions, armored vehicles, and infrastructure, with an unspecified number of dead and wounded, not yet independently verified.

Beyond the operational data, this scenario raises serious and substantive concerns under international law, particularly regarding the conduct attributed to state actors involved in the broader conflict, including Israel and the United States.

Military operations conducted in or near densely populated areas, combined with the scope and nature of the reported targets, directly engage core principles of international humanitarian law, including:

• Principle of distinction – the obligation to differentiate between military objectives and civilians
• Principle of proportionality – the prohibition of attacks causing excessive civilian harm relative to anticipated military advantage
• Principle of military necessity – limiting the use of force to what is strictly required for legitimate military objectives

If substantiated, strikes affecting settlements or infrastructure not clearly qualifying as military objectives may constitute serious violations of the Geneva Conventions and customary international humanitarian law.

Furthermore, any direct or indirect involvement of external powers, such as the United States, raises additional legal concerns under the United Nations Charter, particularly regarding the prohibition on the use of force outside the framework of self-defense or without authorization from the UN Security Council.

This evolving context points not only to a military escalation, but to a potential systemic erosion of fundamental international legal norms, especially those designed to protect civilian populations.

In the absence of transparent and independent verification mechanisms, there is a tangible risk of normalizing operational practices that conflict with established international law, with significant implications for both humanitarian conditions on the ground and the legal accountability of states involved.