The escalation came just days after Israel killed the head of Hezbollah.

The Israeli military had warned residents to evacuate areas near buildings it said contained Hezbollah infrastructure south of the Lebanese capital. At least two Israeli strikes hit Beirut’s southern suburbs, a security source said.

Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant earlier told council heads the next phase of the war along Lebanon’s southern border would begin soon, and would support the aim of bringing home Israelis who had fled Hezbollah rockets during nearly a year of border warfare.

“We will use all the means that may be required – your forces, other forces, from the air, from the sea, and on land. Good luck,” he told troops.

Lebanese troops pulled back from positions along Lebanon’s southern border with Israel to about 5km north of the border, a Lebanese security source told Reuters.

A Lebanese army spokesperson did not confirm or deny the movement.

Lebanon’s army has historically stayed on the sidelines of major conflicts with Israel, and in the past year of hostilities has not fired on the Israeli military.

Amal Al-Hourani, mayor of Jdeidet Marjayoun, a Christian-majority Lebanese village less than 10km from the border, told Reuters two locals had received calls apparently from the Israeli Army telling them to evacuate the area as soon as possible.

The Israeli military declared the areas around the communities of Metula, Misgav Am, and Kfar Giladi in northern Israel near the border with Lebanon as a closed military zone and said entry to the areas was prohibited.

As speculation grew that the ground operation was imminent, an Israeli military spokesperson issued a statement on social media platform X telling Israelis not to “spread irresponsible rumours” about troop movements and activities.

State Department spokesman Matthew Miller said Israel had told the US it was conducting limited ground operations focused on Hezbollah infrastructure in Lebanon, near the border.

Israel last week rejected a proposal by the US and France calling for a 21-day ceasefire to give time for a diplomatic settlement that would allow displaced civilians on both sides to return home.

US President Joe Biden, who has so far had little success urging Israel to rein in its assaults on Hezbollah or on the Hamas militia in Gaza, called for a ceasefire.

“I’m more worried than you might know and I’m comfortable with them stopping,” Biden told reporters when asked if he was comfortable with Israeli plans for a cross-border incursion. “We should have a ceasefire now.”

Friday’s assassination of Hassan Nasrallah – the most powerful leader in Tehran’s “Axis of Resistance” against Israeli and US interests in the Middle East – was one of the heaviest blows in decades to both Hezbollah and Iran, and followed two weeks of intensive airstrikes.

Hezbollah’s deputy leader Naim Qassem, in a first public speech since Nasrallah’s death, said “the resistance forces are ready for a ground engagement”.

The Israeli airstrikes have eliminated several Hezbollah commanders but also killed about 1000 civilians and forced one million to flee their homes, according to the Lebanese Government.

At least 95 people were killed and 172 wounded in Israeli strikes on Lebanon’s southern regions, the eastern Bekaa Valley, and Beirut in the past 24 hours, Lebanon’s health ministry said on Tuesday.

Nasrallah’s killing, along with the assassinations and systematic attacks on the group’s communications devices, constitute the biggest blow to the Shi’ite movement since Iran created it in 1982 to fight Israel.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Hezbollah’s main backer, Iran, that “there is nowhere we will not go to protect our people and protect our country”.

In February, his lawyers argued four grounds for appeal in the WA Court of Appeal.

The first alleged Chief Judge Julie Wager erred in law and fact in finding that the appellant’s use of methylamphetamine had a significant role in his offending.

The second and third grounds alleged Chief Judge Wager erred in law in applying two principles of law, including by failing to sufficiently acknowledge his deprived, traumatic childhood and mental impairment when assessing his moral culpability.

The three appeal court judges dismissed grounds one, two and three in a Perth court on Monday.

“Her Honour did not misapply any legal test applicable to the determination of whether the appellant’s use of methylamphetamine had a significant and causal role in the offending,” Justice Michael Buss said in the decision.

The three judges disagreed on the fourth ground of appeal claiming the sentence was manifestly excessive, with Justice Buss finding it had been made out and that he would have reduced Kelly’s sentence to 12 years due to the mitigating factors.

Justices Robert Mazza and Stephen Hall came to a different conclusion, dismissing ground four.

“On any view, the appellant’s abduction of such a young and highly vulnerable child from her parents, at night, and then holding her captive in his house for 18 days was extraordinarily serious,” they said.

“As tragic as the appellant’s background is, the sad fact remains that his risk of reoffending required that the sentence imposed upon him have regard to the sentencing objective of public protection.”

Justices Mazza and Hall said Chief Judge Wager faced a difficult sentencing exercise and Kelly’s circumstances were complex.

They said Kelly’s mental impairments and profound childhood deprivation were factors that “pulled both ways” and that his methylamphetamine use contributed to the offending.

“The appellant poses a well above average risk of reoffending and, should that risk eventuate, there is a high risk he would inflict serious psychological harm on any future victim,” they said.

The justices said the head sentence of 20 years’ imprisonment, with discounts for the guilty plea and mitigating factors, was justified due to the seriousness of the offending and need to protect the public.

“The sentence imposed upon the appellant was severe but it was an appropriate reflection of the extraordinarily serious nature of the offence the appellant committed,” they said.

Duffield said the hypocrisy of a leader enjoying expensive free clothing and outings while asking others to tighten their belts was “staggering”.

She also attacked the Prime Minister’s decision to maintain a cap on a benefit aimed at supporting families with children.

“Someone with far-above-average wealth choosing to keep the Conservatives’ two-child limit to benefit payments which entrenches children in poverty, while inexplicably accepting expensive personal gifts of designer suits and glasses costing more than most of those people can grasp – this is entirely undeserving of holding the title of Labour Prime Minister,” she wrote.

Duffield said that she would in the future sit as an independent MP “guided by my core Labour values”.

The row over the free gifts from rich donors has already cast a shadow over the party’s first conference since they returned to Government.

Labour ousted the Conservatives in a landslide election win in July after 14 years in opposition.

But instead of toasting their victory at the conference earlier this week, ministers found themselves on the back foot and facing anger from the normally supportive unions.

Financial ‘black hole’

All of the gifts accepted by Starmer had been declared and none fall foul of parliamentary rules.

But records show that Starmer accepted more than £100,000 ($210,000) in gifts and hospitality since December 2019, more than any other lawmaker.

It also emerged that Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner accepted the loan of a New York apartment for a holiday and that Chancellor Rachel Reeves accepted around £7500 worth of clothing.

Reeves and the Labour Party have defended the abolition of the £300 payment to many pensioners to help them heat their homes, citing a need to fill a “£22 billion black hole” they say was left by the Conservatives.

Starmer lost a symbolic vote at the conference demanding that he reverse the contentious policy.

The vote was non-binding but its outcome was nonetheless embarrassing for the Premier.

It highlighted the strength of feeling among activists and union backers.

Delegates narrowly backed a union motion calling for the cut to be reversed.

“I do not understand how our new Labour Government can cut the winter fuel allowance for pensioners and leave the super rich untouched,” said the Unite union general secretary Sharon Graham.