Rome Talks End Without Agreement on Who Verifies Hezbollah Disarmament; Israel Strikes South Lebanon After Two Reservists Killed
Israeli and Lebanese delegates finished a seventh round of U.S.-mediated talks on August 6 without naming the countries that would inspect cleared zones, and Israel resumed strikes after a bomb blast killed two reservists in Majdal Zoun.
Two Reservists, One Building, No Deal on Who Checks the Rubble
The bomb was inside the building before the soldiers walked in. That much both the Israeli military and independent investigators agree on. What they don't yet agree on is when it got there — planted fresh by Hezbollah as a violation of a four-month-old ceasefire, or left over from the war that ceasefire ended, sitting undetected in a village south of the Litani River until August 5, 2026, when Maj. (res.) Harel Birenstock, 34, and Sgt. Maj. (res.) Tamir Vaknin, 33, walked in to help clear it[9][12][18].
That single unresolved question sits at the center of a much bigger one. Two days earlier, Israeli and Lebanese delegations had sat down in Rome for a seventh round of U.S.-mediated talks, trying to finish a deal both governments already signed onto in June[1][5]. By August 6, they'd made no progress on the one issue that decides everything else: who gets to check whether Hezbollah is actually disarming[2][7]. Then the bomb went off, and Israel struck back into southern Lebanon, and a diplomatic stall turned into a live military exchange, all while the argument over verification stayed exactly where it started.
What a "Pilot Zone" Actually Settles
To understand why a bureaucratic committee is the thing blocking a ceasefire, you need to understand the deal itself. In Washington on June 26, 2026, Israel and Lebanon agreed to a framework: Hezbollah gives up its weapons, Israeli troops withdraw from southern Lebanon in stages, and the Lebanese army moves into the space they leave behind[3][6]. The withdrawals were set to start in small test areas called pilot zones — a patch of land where Israel pulls out, Lebanon moves in, and someone checks the ground is actually clear.
That someone is the verification committee, made up of outside countries whose inspectors walk the land and report what they find[2][7]. This is the part that sounds procedural and isn't. Whoever sits on that committee decides what counts as "clean." Israel wants countries willing to report a violation out loud — because a committee that goes easy means Israel hands back land and gets nothing it can trust in return. Lebanon and its allies want countries that won't just repeat Israeli intelligence — because a committee that's too strict means Israel never has to leave. Seven rounds of talks in, the two sides still haven't agreed on the roster, and Israeli media report Israel is now refusing further withdrawals until that question is settled[2].
Two Preconditions, Each One the Other Side's Concession
Underneath the committee fight is a deeper problem: the two governments each want the other to move first. Israel wants Hezbollah's disarmament verified before it withdraws more troops. Lebanon wants Israel to withdraw before it can finish disarming Hezbollah. Put those side by side and each side's opening condition is the other side's final concession[2][8].
Israel's case rests on memory. Hezbollah has rebuilt after past ceasefires collapsed, so Israel says it will only trade land for results it can check on the ground, not promises on paper[2]. The Majdal Zoun blast became the proof Israeli officials pointed to first — soldiers clearing what the military called Hezbollah infrastructure, killed inside it, in ground that was supposed to already be clear[9]. That case got more complicated within days, when Israeli investigators themselves said it wasn't clear whether the device was planted after the ceasefire or simply never found[18] — a gap that matters, because it's the difference between a fresh violation and an old danger nobody had cleared yet.
Lebanon's case rests on sequence. The Lebanese army says it already finished a first phase of clearing weapons south of the Litani and wants international backing to keep going[13][14]. Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a Hezbollah ally who is also part of the Lebanese state, has pledged to make that area weapons-free if Israel commits to a genuine ceasefire — and has dismissed the pilot-zone approach outright as a waste of time[8]. Lebanon's underlying argument: no government can ask its own people to disarm while a foreign army still occupies their villages and strikes their towns.
The Party at the Table Nobody Can Bind
There's a third player in this, and it isn't at the table. Hezbollah's leader, Naim Qassem, has said the group's weapons are a Lebanese internal matter — not something to negotiate with Israel — and called the Rome talks a source of "shame, humiliation, and successive compromises"[10][11]. He's also warned the group will confront Lebanese actors who "collaborate with the Israeli project," a line critics read as a threat against fellow Lebanese[11].
That leaves the Lebanese state negotiating over weapons that belong to a group actively rejecting the negotiation. Hezbollah's own justification isn't without grounding: UNIFIL, the UN peacekeeping force in Lebanon, has confirmed Israeli forces still hold five positions and two buffer zones inside Lebanese territory, which the UN says is inconsistent with the ceasefire resolution governing the border[15]. From Hezbollah's side, disarming while Israel still occupies ground and strikes at will looks like leaving the south defenseless. From Israel's side, an armed group refusing to even discuss disarmament is the entire reason it doesn't trust the process. Both readings survive contact with the same facts.
Who Loses if the Clock Just Keeps Running
Time is not neutral here, and that's a big part of why nobody's in a hurry to blink first. Israel currently holds positions inside Lebanon and can strike when it chooses; a stalled process costs it reservist casualties and diplomatic friction, but not territory[15]. For Lebanon, a stalled process costs civilians. The country's Health Ministry has reported thousands of deaths and more than a million people displaced since March 2, 2026 — figures Israel disputes, arguing many of the dead were combatants[16].
The August 5 strikes fit that pattern on both sides. After the Majdal Zoun blast, Israel struck weapons depots and command centers in southern Lebanon and issued an evacuation warning for the town of Mansouri[9]. A separate Israeli strike hit the roof of a cemetery prayer hall in Tibnin; Lebanon's Health Ministry said it killed one person and wounded 12[4]. Washington, meanwhile, is pushing both governments to close this out — U.S. officials pressed Lebanon in Rome to dismantle Hezbollah's infrastructure while urging Israel to keep pulling out of pilot zones, and President Trump has floated the idea of Lebanon eventually joining the Abraham Accords[5][6][10]. A stalled process that the U.S. publicly sponsored is a liability Washington wants gone, which is part of why the talks keep happening even when they keep ending the same way.
The Same Facts, Told Two Ways
Coverage of the same eight days split largely along where an outlet starts the clock. Israeli and pro-Israel outlets like The Times of Israel and JNS led with the reservists' deaths and framed the Israeli strikes that followed as a response to a ceasefire violation[9] — a framing that, in at least one case, ran without the later caveat from Israeli investigators that it remained unclear whether the device was actually new. Al Jazeera and other outlets covering the story from a non-Western vantage filed it under a standing section titled "Israel attacks Lebanon," which frames the causal direction before a reader even reaches the text, and led more with Lebanese casualties and Israel's continued positions inside Lebanese territory[15].
A few outlets broke that pattern. Haaretz's headline named both asks in the dispute — Hezbollah disarmament and Israeli withdrawal — where most coverage named only one, and The Jerusalem Post ran a piece that treated the verification committee itself, not the strikes, as the actual news[2][7]. CBC's coverage went the other direction, giving a clean cause-and-effect account of the strikes while leaving out the verification dispute entirely, which makes the episode read as a flare-up rather than what it also is: a negotiation that's been stuck on the same question for going on eight days.
What isn't settled, in the coverage or in Rome, is what happens next. The talks are expected to continue. Whether the Majdal Zoun device turns out to be old or new may end up mattering less than whether either government can afford to be the one that moves first.
Summary
Israeli and Lebanese delegations met in Rome from August 4 to August 6, 2026. It was the seventh round of direct, U.S.-mediated talks since a ceasefire was declared in April[1][5]. The talks were meant to build out a framework deal reached in Washington on June 26. That deal pairs three things: Hezbollah gives up its weapons, Israeli troops pull back from southern Lebanon in stages, and the Lebanese army moves in behind them[3][6]. The pullbacks start in small test areas called 'pilot zones.' The Rome round ended without a deal on one specific question — which countries would sit on the committee that checks whether a cleared zone is really clear[2][7].
That question sounds technical. It is the whole fight. Israel will not hand back more ground unless it trusts the inspection. Lebanon says it cannot keep clearing ground if Israel never leaves. Israeli media reported that Israel is refusing further withdrawals until the verification mechanism is settled[2]. Lebanon's side, backed by Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, argues the army has already done the work and that Israel's continued presence and strikes are what block the rest[8].
The talks ran alongside fighting. On Wednesday, August 5, an explosive device went off inside a building in the southern village of Majdal Zoun as Israeli reserve troops worked to demolish what the IDF called Hezbollah infrastructure. Two reservists were killed — Maj. (res.) Harel Birenstock, 34, and Sgt. Maj. (res.) Tamir Vaknin, 33 — and four were seriously wounded[9][12]. The IDF initially called it a 'blatant violation' of the ceasefire and struck weapons stores and command centers in the south, but Israeli investigators subsequently said it remained unclear whether the device had been planted before the April ceasefire and simply gone undiscovered, rather than being freshly emplaced by Hezbollah — a distinction that bears on whether the blast was actually a new violation[9][18]. Lebanon's Health Ministry said an Israeli strike on Tibnin hit the roof of a cemetery prayer hall, killing one person and wounding 12[4].
Hezbollah rejects the premise of the talks entirely. Its leader, Naim Qassem, said the negotiations would bring Lebanon 'nothing but shame, humiliation, and successive compromises,' and has said the group's weapons are a Lebanese internal matter, not something to negotiate with Israel[10][11]. So there are really three positions, not two: Israel, the Lebanese state, and Hezbollah — and the Lebanese state is trying to deliver something Hezbollah has publicly refused to give.
The Event
A seventh round of U.S.-mediated Israel-Lebanon talks ran in Rome from August 4 to August 6, 2026, covering military coordination, land and maritime borders, and Hezbollah's disarmament[1][5][6]. The rounds ended without agreement on which countries would staff the committee verifying that pilot zones entered by the Lebanese army are free of Hezbollah fighters and weapons[2][7]. On August 5, an improvised explosive device detonated inside a building in Majdal Zoun in southern Lebanon, killing two Israeli reservists and seriously wounding four[9][12]; Israeli investigators later said it was not yet confirmed whether the device predated the ceasefire and went undetected, rather than being newly placed[18]. The Israeli military then struck weapons storage sites and command centers in southern Lebanon and issued evacuation warnings for the town of Mansouri; Lebanon's Health Ministry said a strike on Tibnin killed one person and wounded 12[4][9].
Undisputed Facts
- Israel and Lebanon agreed to a framework deal at talks in Washington on June 26, 2026, covering disarmament of armed groups, a phased Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, and Lebanese army deployment[3][6].
- The Rome round that began August 4, 2026 was the seventh round of direct talks under U.S. mediation since the April ceasefire[1][5].
- The parties did not agree in Rome on the makeup of the verification committee for pilot zones[2][7].
- Two Israeli reservists, Maj. (res.) Harel Birenstock and Sgt. Maj. (res.) Tamir Vaknin, were killed by an explosive device in Majdal Zoun on August 5, 2026[9][12].
- Israeli investigators said it remained unclear whether the explosive device had been planted before the April ceasefire and went undiscovered, rather than being freshly emplaced[18].
- The Israeli military struck sites in southern Lebanon after the blast and issued evacuation warnings for Mansouri[9].
- Lebanon's Health Ministry reported one person killed and 12 wounded in an Israeli strike on a cemetery prayer hall in Tibnin[4].
- Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem publicly opposed the Rome talks and has refused to put the group's weapons on the negotiating table[10][11].
- Lebanon's army adopted a phased plan in September 2025 to establish a state monopoly on weapons, beginning south of the Litani River, and said in January 2026 that phase one was complete[13][14].
- UNIFIL has stated that Israeli forces maintain five positions and two buffer zones inside Lebanon, which it describes as inconsistent with UN Security Council Resolution 1701[15].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- Verification is the load-bearing term — here is how it works
- A 'pilot zone' is a small patch of southern Lebanon used as a test. Israeli troops pull out, the Lebanese army moves in, and someone then confirms the patch holds no Hezbollah fighters, tunnels, or weapons. That someone is the verification committee: a body of outside states whose inspectors walk the ground and report what they find. Whoever staffs it decides what counts as clean. Israel wants states willing to report a violation out loud, because a committee that under-reports means Israel gives up land and gets nothing checkable. Lebanon and its allies want states that will not simply relay Israeli intelligence, because a committee that always finds violations means Israel never has to leave. Neither side is being unreasonable. Both are asking the same question — who has the power to say 'not yet' — and the answer decides who controls the pace of the whole deal[2][7].
- Sequencing deadlock
- Israel wants disarmament verified before withdrawal. Lebanon wants withdrawal before it can finish disarmament. Each side's precondition is the other side's concession. That structure, not bad faith alone, is why seven rounds have not closed the gap[2][8].
- Beirut cannot deliver what it is being asked to promise
- The Lebanese state is negotiating over the weapons of a group that rejects the talks and has warned it will confront Lebanese actors who cooperate with them[10][11]. Any Lebanese commitment to disarm Hezbollah is a promise about a party not at the table.
- Facts on the ground favor delay for Israel
- Israel holds positions inside Lebanon now and can strike at will. Time costs it reservist casualties and diplomatic friction but not territory. For Lebanon, time costs civilians, displacement, and reconstruction money[15][16].
Material realityIsraeli forces occupy positions inside southern Lebanon that UNIFIL says are inconsistent with Resolution 1701, and strikes continue during negotiations[15]. Lebanon's Health Ministry has reported thousands of deaths and more than a million displaced since March 2, 2026 — figures Israel disputes in composition, arguing many of the dead are combatants[16]. Hezbollah has lost commanders and infrastructure but retains weapons and a political base. The Lebanese army has deployed south of the Litani and declared a first phase complete, but has neither the manpower nor the political cover to forcibly disarm Hezbollah nationwide[13][14]. None of that changes based on which side wins the argument over verification. It changes only if withdrawal and disarmament actually happen in some order both sides can live with.
Narrative as a weaponFour actors are shaping how this reads. Israel wants you to see a ceasefire that Hezbollah keeps breaking, with the Majdal Zoun bomb as proof, so that holding ground looks defensive rather than expansionist. Hezbollah wants you to see an occupation that never ended, so that keeping its weapons looks like self-defense rather than defiance of its own government. The Lebanese state — the most fragile position — wants you to see an army doing real work under impossible conditions, so it can claim credit for progress while blaming Israel for what is unfinished. Washington wants you to see a deal that is nearly closed and needs only a technical fix, because a stalled process it sponsored is a liability. Watch for two specific moves in coverage: the outlet that reports the reservists' deaths without the retaliatory strike, and the outlet that reports the strikes without the bomb that preceded them. Each is accurate about what it prints and misleading about what it leaves out.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asIsrael's core argument is that a paper commitment is not disarmament. Hezbollah rebuilt after past ceasefires, so Israel says it will trade land only for checked, physical results[2]. The Majdal Zoun bomb is the evidence it points to: troops clearing what the IDF called Hezbollah infrastructure were killed inside it, in an area meant to be cleared[9]. Israel's best advocates make an analogy to arms control generally — an inspection regime is worthless if the inspectors are chosen by the party being inspected, or by states unwilling to report violations. That is why the identity of the verifying countries is not a detail to Israel. It is the difference between a real check and a rubber stamp. That said, Israeli investigators themselves have since cautioned that it is unclear whether the Majdal Zoun device was freshly planted or predated the ceasefire, which would weaken the case that this specific incident was a new Hezbollah violation rather than a delayed consequence of the war that preceded the truce[18].
WhyKeep a security buffer in the north, prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding rocket and tunnel capacity, and avoid a repeat of the pre-2023 posture. Domestically, the Netanyahu government faces heavy political cost for any pullback that is later followed by attacks[2][9].
Impact on themOngoing reserve call-ups and casualties inside Lebanon, plus continued northern displacement and a stalled diplomatic track that Washington wants closed[9][2].
Frames it asBeirut's argument is sequencing. The Lebanese Armed Forces say they have already cleared the area south of the Litani in a first phase and want international support to continue[13][14]. Berri, a Hezbollah ally who is nonetheless part of the state, has pledged to make the area south of the Litani weapons-free if Israel commits to a real ceasefire, and has rejected the pilot-zone approach as a waste of time[8]. The strongest version of Lebanon's case: a state cannot ask its own citizens to give up guns while a foreign army occupies their villages and strikes their towns. Every strike hands Hezbollah the argument that only it can defend the south. Disarmament is possible, Lebanon says, but only if withdrawal is credible and comes first or in step.
WhyRestore state authority over weapons without triggering civil conflict, unlock reconstruction money and international aid, and end an occupation the government cannot dislodge by force[8][13].
Impact on themCivilian deaths and destruction continue in the south; the Health Ministry has counted thousands killed since March 2, 2026, and more than a million displaced[16]. A failed process weakens the presidency and the army's standing.
Frames it asHezbollah rejects the frame that its weapons are an item in an Israel-Lebanon negotiation. Qassem calls them a purely Lebanese internal matter[11]. Its strongest honest case has three parts. First, Israel still holds ground inside Lebanon and strikes at will, so disarming would leave the south defenseless — the group points to UNIFIL's own finding of Israeli positions north of the Blue Line[15]. Second, the group argues that direct talks with Israel drag Lebanon toward normalization it never voted for; Qassem called the Rome track 'shame, humiliation, and successive compromises'[10]. Third, it presents itself as representing a large Shia constituency whose villages bore the war, and warns it will confront Lebanese actors who 'collaborate with the Israeli project'[11] — a line critics read as a threat of internal violence.
WhySurvive as an armed movement, keep its political veto inside Lebanon, and retain its role in Iran's regional deterrence structure. Disarmament would end its main source of leverage[10][11].
Impact on themHeavy losses of commanders and infrastructure, its constituency displaced and its reconstruction promises strained, and growing pressure from a Lebanese state it once effectively controlled[10][13].
Frames it asWashington's position is that Lebanon has a one-time chance to become a normal state with one army. U.S. officials pressed Beirut in Rome to dismantle Hezbollah's infrastructure while urging Israel to keep withdrawing from pilot zones[5][6]. President Trump has raised the prospect that Lebanon might eventually join the Abraham Accords[10]. The strongest U.S. argument is practical: neither side can achieve its aim alone. Israel cannot verify from the air; Lebanon cannot disarm Hezbollah without a withdrawal to show for it. Only an outside guarantor can make the two moves happen at once.
WhyClose out an open front, keep Iran's network degraded, avoid another open-ended U.S. commitment, and show a diplomatic win. The verification fight risks extending American involvement rather than ending it[2][7].
Impact on themEnvoys are drawn into repeated rounds; a collapse would leave Washington owning a failed process it publicly sponsored[7].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.4
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Haaretz | Israeli left | 2 | 'Israel, Lebanon Begin Next Round of Talks; U.S. Urges Hezbollah Disarmament, IDF Withdrawal From Pilot Zones.' | Notably even-handed here — the headline names both asks, disarmament and Israeli withdrawal, where most outlets name only one. Framing centers U.S. pressure rather than either party's grievance. |
| CBC News | Canadian public broadcaster | 2 | 'Israel strikes south Lebanon after 2 soldiers killed.' | Plain cause-and-effect headline with both sides' casualties in the frame. Omits the verification dispute entirely, which makes the story read as a flare-up rather than a stalled negotiation. |
| The Jerusalem Post | Israeli center-right | 3 | 'Israel, Lebanon, US weigh who will verify Hezbollah disarmament after negotiations in Rome.' | This particular piece is close to straight process reporting and is one of the few to make the verification committee, not the strikes, the news. Elsewhere the paper's sourcing leans on anonymous Israeli officials describing talks as 'positive.' |
| The Times of Israel | Israeli center | 5 | 'Two reservists killed, four seriously wounded by IED blast in south Lebanon; IDF strikes Hezbollah in response' and, separately, 'Israel said refusing further withdrawals from Lebanon amid spat over who will verify Hezbollah disarmament.' | Detailed and well-sourced, but 'in response' is doing causal work in the headline, and Lebanese casualties from the retaliatory strikes appear lower down or not at all. This piece also doesn't carry the outlet's own later liveblog caveat that investigators were unsure whether the device predated the ceasefire, which would complicate the 'in response' causation. The withdrawal story is sourced to unnamed Israeli officials and hedged with 'said,' which is honest labeling. |
| Al Jazeera | Qatari state-funded | 5 | 'Lebanon and Israel still split over disarming Hezbollah at Rome talks,' filed under a standing section labeled 'Israel attacks Lebanon.' | The section label frames every story in the file before a reader gets to the text. Coverage leads with Israeli strikes and Lebanese casualties and gives less weight to the IED that killed the reservists. Its reporting on the disarmament stalemate is otherwise straightforward. |
| The Tribune | Indian, English-language daily | 6 | 'We will turn it into hell for Israel, says Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem as he rejects disarmament talks.' | Leads with the most inflammatory available quote. That maximizes drama and drops the context of what Hezbollah says it is defending against, which flattens the group into a slogan. |
| JNS | U.S./Israeli right, pro-Israel advocacy-funded | 8 | 'Hezbollah chief slams humiliation of Israel-Lebanon talks in Rome.' | Foregrounds Qassem's rejectionism, which makes Hezbollah the obstacle by construction. Uses 'terror group' as a standing descriptor. The underlying quote is real and on the record; the selection is the framing. Coverage elsewhere in this outlet's file also omits Israeli investigators' own caveat that the Majdal Zoun device may predate the ceasefire, which would undercut the 'violation' framing used to justify Israel's response. |
References
- Israel, Lebanon Begin Next Round of Talks; U.S. Urges Hezbollah Disarmament, IDF Withdrawal From Pilot Zones — Haaretz · Israeli left-liberal daily, privately owned (Schocken family, with M. DuMont Schauberg stake)
- Israel said refusing further withdrawals from Lebanon amid spat over who will verify Hezbollah disarmament — The Times of Israel · Israeli centrist online daily, privately funded
- Lebanon and Israel hold new round of direct talks in Rome to discuss Hezbollah disarming — Euronews · European broadcaster, part-funded by the EU, majority-owned by Alpac Capital
- At least one Lebanese person, two Israeli soldiers killed in south Lebanon — Al Jazeera · Qatari government-funded
- Lebanon and Israel still split over disarming Hezbollah at Rome talks — Al Jazeera · Qatari government-funded
- Lebanon, Israel hold talks in Rome on implementing framework deal — Al Jazeera · Qatari government-funded
- Israel, Lebanon, US weigh who will verify Hezbollah disarmament after negotiations in Rome — The Jerusalem Post · Israeli center-right English-language daily, owned by the Jerusalem Post Group (Mirkaei Tikshoret)
- Berri pledges Hezbollah disarmament south Litani, rejects pilot zones as time waste — Naharnet · Lebanese independent English-language news site
- Two reservists killed, four seriously wounded by IED blast in south Lebanon; IDF strikes Hezbollah in response — The Times of Israel · Israeli centrist online daily, privately funded
- Hezbollah chief slams 'humiliation' of Israel-Lebanon talks in Rome — JNS · U.S.-based pro-Israel news service, donor-funded, editorially right-leaning
- 'We will turn it into hell for Israel,' says Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem as he rejects disarmament talks — The Tribune · Indian English-language daily, run by a trust
- Two IDF reservists killed, four wounded in southern Lebanon booby-trapped house — The Jerusalem Post · Israeli center-right English-language daily
- Lebanon army says phase one of disarming non-state groups in south complete — Al Jazeera · Qatari government-funded
- Lebanon says first phase of plan to disarm Hezbollah completed, but Netanyahu warns progress 'far from sufficient' — CNN · U.S. mainstream, center-left framing, Warner Bros. Discovery-owned
- UNIFIL statement (03 March 2026) — United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon · UN peacekeeping mission; mandate derives from Resolution 1701, which shapes what it counts as a violation
- Health Ministry updates death toll of Israel's attacks on Lebanon: 4,321 killed since March 2 — L'Orient Today · Lebanese francophone-linked English outlet, editorially critical of both Hezbollah and Israeli strikes; figures come from Lebanon's Health Ministry, which does not separate combatants from civilians
- Israel strikes south Lebanon after 2 soldiers killed — CBC News · Canadian public broadcaster, government-funded
- IDF announces 2 reservists killed, 4 seriously wounded by IED blast in south Lebanon — The Times of Israel · Israeli centrist online daily, privately funded