For Reuters, only Israel is subject to international law

Reuters correspondents seem to relish the citing of non-binding findings in international law that disfavor Israel -- like the ICJs advisory opinion on the security fence in 2004.  They are much more circumspect however, to note authoritative resolutions issued by bodies like the UN Security Council that find for Israel and/or condemn Arab violations of international law.  Take for example, the UNSC ruling in June of 2000 that Israel had completely withdrawn from Lebanese territory and that the Shebaa Farms area belongs not to Lebanon, but to Syria.  Reuters correspondent Yara Bayoumy appears to be confused about the independence of this determination:

Israel and Hezbollah have traded threats, even though each insists it is not seeking another conflict. One potential flashpoint is Shebaa Farms, a tiny area claimed by Lebanon but still occupied by Israel, which says it was Syrian territory.

For Bayoumy, it is only Israel that is asserting Shebaa Farms is not a part of Lebanon; there is no mention of the UNSC ruling confirming the same.  Thus, it's reported as simply a "he said-she said" between Israel and Lebanon with no reference to international law that upholds Israel's view.

In suggesting that the belligerent parties may be moving toward another war, Bayoumy cites the "unsubstantiated" allegation of the transfer of Scud missiles from Syria to Hezbollah:

The region has stayed largely quiet since 2006 with U.N. and Lebanese army troops monitoring the border. But unsubstantiated Israeli allegations that Syria has transferred long-range Scud missiles to Hezbollah have caused rumors of war to swirl.

In fact, Hezbollah has confirmed receiving the Scuds and Bayoumy fails to make any mention of Hezbollah's rearming with tens of thousands of other rockets in violation of UNSC Resolution 1701.

Just another Swiss cheese sandwich prepared by Reuters.