It was the incessant attempts by Israel to invade Lebanon and the inaction of the Lebanese government but I guess your answer responds to your underlying allegiances.
when you let iranian militants dig into your neighborhoods and launch missles at their neighbors for years you have to deal with the consequences. they let their government and military get thoroughly cucked by foreign militias and now they get to live with it.
"Israel's defence minister has said a buffer zone will be set up inside southern Lebanon and that Israel will keep security control over a swathe of the territory even after the end of the current war against the armed group Hezbollah."
"JERUSALEM, March 31 (Reuters) - Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area.
Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended."
Israel is instructing civilians to leave the areas where there is fighting as is their responsibility under international law. When Hezbollah is disarmed by Lebanon and the war is over they can return.
It's been the case in all the previous wars fought in Lebanon.
The question is why do people keep falling for the arguments against Israel when clearly Israel was attacked from Lebanon, is not attacking any neighbor that does not attack it, and is responding just like any other normal country would when it is attacked.
Israel went after Hamas in Doha and not after Qatar as a country. Does this really prove your point?
EDIT: exploring the legality of this with AI:
The "Unwilling or Unable" Doctrine: A major debate in international law is whether a state can use force in self-defense against a non-state actor located in another sovereign state. Some nations (like the US and Israel) argue for the "unwilling or unable" standard. This doctrine suggests that if a host state (e.g., Qatar) is unwilling or unable to stop a non-state actor (e.g., Hamas) from using its territory to direct or launch attacks, the victim state (Israel) has the right to use force within the host state's borders to defend itself.
Violations of Sovereignty: Conversely, many states and legal experts reject the "unwilling or unable" doctrine. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter strictly prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of another state. From this viewpoint, executing a strike in Qatar without Qatari consent or a UN Security Council mandate would be viewed as an illegal act of aggression and a violation of Qatar's sovereignty.
I think my overall point still stands though that in the absences of aggression towards Israel Israel would not be attacking. The exact threshold though is obviously something we debate- e.g. whether simply hosting the leadership of Hamas is enough of a reason to take military action. But it's a reason (i.e. Israel had some self-defense justification).
The Pentagon e.g. would be a legitimate target for Iran and if in their operations against the US they know that your neighborhood is a military target then they can and should warn you and allow you to leave. I doubt that the US military stores rockets in your basement but if they are then that would be a concern. That said if you were in range of Iran's rockets I don't think they'd worry much about e.g. firing cluster munitions on Washington DC like they do on Tel Aviv or Israeli cities.
The person you are replying to is probably someone who won't understand that the genocide Israel is perpetrating, the settler colonialism, the systemic abuses and torture and rape of prisoners, the invasion are all justified somehow.
Some people cannot take a step back and consider other perspectives, unfortunately.
Edit: see? Their response, "I like it"? This person is deeply troubled and misanthropic.
Given the level of bloodthirst in Israeli society currently, and the accounts of torture of Palestinians in Israeli custody, I’m afraid that something similar is just around the corner for Lebanese as well.
No. It is Lebanon attacking Israel that resulted in Israel's self defense actions that resulted in the displacement. The displacement is due to Israel's warning to civilians to leave the area of fighting for their protection as it is required to do by international law. Lebanon is firing rockets into Israeli civilian population daily, this is a war crime.
"Israel strikes Lebanon after Iran ally Hezbollah fires missiles over border"
Is Israel firing into Christian neighborhoods? I think I saw something saying they were not. That seems consistent with Israel’s strikes being intended to target Hezbollah specifically (because Hezbollah launched rockets into Israel at the outset of the military operation in Iran).
“Lebanese Maronite Catholic priest Fr. Pierre al-Rahi, … was killed in this village in southern Lebanon during an Israeli artillery tank fire on a house March 9, 2026 … al-Rahi had earlier refused, along with other priests, to obey an order by the Israeli military to evacuate the Christian village of Qlayaa”
That's an exception that proves the rule. For the most part Israel is not firing at either Sunni or Christian villages. There is also more to this specific incident so people should research it.
And they are also using humans as shield? Is it only the enemies of Israel that use human shields or do criminals/terrorists in Israel (if there is such a thing) or any other country do that too?
> The displacement is due to Israel's warning to civilians to leave the area of fighting for their protection
Most modern instances of ethnic cleansing are justified as military necessities.
E.g.: Armenian genocide
“Article 1—During war time, army and corp commanders and their deputies and commanders of fortified posts are obliged to destroy any assault or resistance and violently restore order with military forces in the case of opposition, armed attacks or resistance directed against the government orders, the defense of homeland and the preservation of public order.
Article 2—Army, independent corp and division commanders are allowed to transfer and relocate the village and town population in matters related to the military affair or if they feel there is an activity of espionage and treason.”
You can't have it both ways though. If Israel fires back at Hezbollah and civilians are killed then it is committing war crimes and if it asks the civilians to leave then it is committing war crimes. In previous wars in Lebanon civilians were asked to leave and then eventually returned and so there are numerous similar examples where Israel's instructions and the situation was similar and there was no ethnic cleansing.
Interesting, based on your comment Hezbollah did that from Lebanese territories for no reason.
"Lebanese armed group Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel in response to the United States-Israeli war on Iran. Israeli forces have also launched a ground invasion of southern Lebanon."
Last I checked Lebanon was a separate country. So Lebanon decided to join the war against the US and Israel and now the consequences of that are Israel's fault?
Wow-wow just stop that bs. Without Israel people in the region would be murdering each other just like they did in Syria, in the Iran-Iraq war, in Yemen, in Lebanon's civil war etc. Maybe if those countries stopped attacking Israel they wouldn't be in war Mr. warmonger.
EDIT: It's worth mentioning that an attack on another country is not a legal reason according to international law to attack a third country. The critics of Israel and the US are claiming those started an "illegal war" on Iran so by that same rationale Lebanon started an illegal war on Israel.
a) Rise of alternate forms of organizing trust. People distrust government or other organizations, and turn to alternative forms of organization and trust.
b) Rise of digital wallet/transfer systems that are fundamentally about charging for throughput/withdrawals. The article mentions that banks are restricting withdraws - presumably because banks need deposits to stay liquid. Whish on the other hand doesn't care - it makes money as a % of each transaction.
Hasn't Hawala been a thing in Lebanon for hundreds of years? It doesn't seem like a novel development at all, besides the digital tools. Informal money transfer systems are not new thing challenging the banks at all. The banks are the new thing here.
Headline really deploying passive voice here. Israel's invasion and wide bombings of Lebanon is what has displaced a million people.
Lebanon had a few million displaced before bombing even started. Many refugees from Syria, it is basically softer version of Gaza.
Syria actually worse than Gaza (5+ million displaced, 200k+ civilians killed) but over a much larger area and timespan.
Hezbollah's attacks on Israel and the worlds unwillingness to do anything about it is why Israel is in Southern Lebanon yet again.
[flagged]
What motivated hezbolah to form and engage in violence?
money from iran and threat of violence by commanders
the mob flagged a comment stating that thousands of rockets at israeli civilians by hezbollah is what caused the displacement.
https://rocketalert.live/
to destroy israel
What exactly was happening before Hezbollah was formed?
the civil war caused by palestinian and muslim terrorists against christian lebanese
It was the incessant attempts by Israel to invade Lebanon and the inaction of the Lebanese government but I guess your answer responds to your underlying allegiances.
Israel invaded Lebanon for the same reason every time - to prevent attacks on civilians from Lebanese territory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_insurgency_in_Sout...
when you let iranian militants dig into your neighborhoods and launch missles at their neighbors for years you have to deal with the consequences. they let their government and military get thoroughly cucked by foreign militias and now they get to live with it.
"Israel's defence minister has said a buffer zone will be set up inside southern Lebanon and that Israel will keep security control over a swathe of the territory even after the end of the current war against the armed group Hezbollah."
Src》https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5yx8knpr5no
"JERUSALEM, March 31 (Reuters) - Israel will destroy all homes in Lebanese villages near the border and 600,000 people who fled the south will not be allowed home until northern Israel is secure, the defence minister said on Tuesday, vowing to inflict Gaza-like destruction in the area. Israel Katz reiterated Israeli plans to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, saying that it would maintain control over a swathe of territory up to the Litani River once the war with the Iran-backed Hezbollah group ended."
Src》https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/israel-destroy-all...
I wish it wasn't like this but there's no point in not facing reality
Does Iranian militants mean every local Shiite that Israel is now expelling?
Israel is instructing civilians to leave the areas where there is fighting as is their responsibility under international law. When Hezbollah is disarmed by Lebanon and the war is over they can return.
Do people keep falling for these arguments after all the times it hasn't been the case?
It's been the case in all the previous wars fought in Lebanon.
The question is why do people keep falling for the arguments against Israel when clearly Israel was attacked from Lebanon, is not attacking any neighbor that does not attack it, and is responding just like any other normal country would when it is attacked.
> Israel … is not attacking any neighbor that does not attack it
Incorrect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_attack_on_Doha
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_airstrike_on_the_Irani...
Israel went after Hamas in Doha and not after Qatar as a country. Does this really prove your point?
EDIT: exploring the legality of this with AI:
The "Unwilling or Unable" Doctrine: A major debate in international law is whether a state can use force in self-defense against a non-state actor located in another sovereign state. Some nations (like the US and Israel) argue for the "unwilling or unable" standard. This doctrine suggests that if a host state (e.g., Qatar) is unwilling or unable to stop a non-state actor (e.g., Hamas) from using its territory to direct or launch attacks, the victim state (Israel) has the right to use force within the host state's borders to defend itself.
Violations of Sovereignty: Conversely, many states and legal experts reject the "unwilling or unable" doctrine. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter strictly prohibits the use of force against the territorial integrity of another state. From this viewpoint, executing a strike in Qatar without Qatari consent or a UN Security Council mandate would be viewed as an illegal act of aggression and a violation of Qatar's sovereignty.
I think my overall point still stands though that in the absences of aggression towards Israel Israel would not be attacking. The exact threshold though is obviously something we debate- e.g. whether simply hosting the leadership of Hamas is enough of a reason to take military action. But it's a reason (i.e. Israel had some self-defense justification).
How did that work out for the Palestinians?
Has Hamas disarmed yet?
I live in Washington DC area, I am cool not to leave?
The Pentagon e.g. would be a legitimate target for Iran and if in their operations against the US they know that your neighborhood is a military target then they can and should warn you and allow you to leave. I doubt that the US military stores rockets in your basement but if they are then that would be a concern. That said if you were in range of Iran's rockets I don't think they'd worry much about e.g. firing cluster munitions on Washington DC like they do on Tel Aviv or Israeli cities.
oh I’m not worried about Iran :)
Just like Gaza right? Oh wait...
Keep on blaming the victims, as if you would have any say the day armed and organized militias would come into your neighborhood to do the same.
The person you are replying to is probably someone who won't understand that the genocide Israel is perpetrating, the settler colonialism, the systemic abuses and torture and rape of prisoners, the invasion are all justified somehow.
Some people cannot take a step back and consider other perspectives, unfortunately.
Edit: see? Their response, "I like it"? This person is deeply troubled and misanthropic.
[flagged]
Israel isn't colonizing Lebanon or abusing and torturing Lebanese. But Lebanon certainly abuses prisoners: https://www.hrw.org/report/2013/06/26/its-part-job/ill-treat...
So by your logic it is fair game to attack Lebanon due to its treatment of prisoners?
Lebanon also commits war crimes by firing rockets indiscriminately into Israeli population centers.
Why is your rage so selective?
> Israel isn’t … abusing and torturing Lebanese.
Israeli-backed army ran a torture center in south Lebanon for years.
https://www.hrw.org/news/1999/10/27/israel-responsible-abuse...
Given the level of bloodthirst in Israeli society currently, and the accounts of torture of Palestinians in Israeli custody, I’m afraid that something similar is just around the corner for Lebanese as well.
This was from 1999 and it was run by the SLA who were Lebanese. But yes, it was not great and guess what, Israel withdrew from South Lebanon in 2000!
But Lebanon and other Arab countries still routines arbitrarily imprison and torture their citizens.
https://www.hrw.org/news/2023/06/26/lebanon-enforce-anti-tor...
No. It is Lebanon attacking Israel that resulted in Israel's self defense actions that resulted in the displacement. The displacement is due to Israel's warning to civilians to leave the area of fighting for their protection as it is required to do by international law. Lebanon is firing rockets into Israeli civilian population daily, this is a war crime.
"Israel strikes Lebanon after Iran ally Hezbollah fires missiles over border"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/mar/02/israel-idf-str...
Is Israel firing into Christian neighborhoods? I think I saw something saying they were not. That seems consistent with Israel’s strikes being intended to target Hezbollah specifically (because Hezbollah launched rockets into Israel at the outset of the military operation in Iran).
> Is Israel firing into Christian neighborhoods?
Yes.
“Lebanese Maronite Catholic priest Fr. Pierre al-Rahi, … was killed in this village in southern Lebanon during an Israeli artillery tank fire on a house March 9, 2026 … al-Rahi had earlier refused, along with other priests, to obey an order by the Israeli military to evacuate the Christian village of Qlayaa”
https://www.ncronline.org/news/lebanese-maronite-catholic-pr...
That's an exception that proves the rule. For the most part Israel is not firing at either Sunni or Christian villages. There is also more to this specific incident so people should research it.
And they are also using humans as shield? Is it only the enemies of Israel that use human shields or do criminals/terrorists in Israel (if there is such a thing) or any other country do that too?
I'm not sure how we got to the human shield conversation but Hezbollah is firing from within civilian areas if that's the question: https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-891166
As to what's common between Hezbollah and Hamas and Iran in the way they treat their civilians I will leave that as an exercise to the reader.
> The displacement is due to Israel's warning to civilians to leave the area of fighting for their protection
Most modern instances of ethnic cleansing are justified as military necessities.
E.g.: Armenian genocide
“Article 1—During war time, army and corp commanders and their deputies and commanders of fortified posts are obliged to destroy any assault or resistance and violently restore order with military forces in the case of opposition, armed attacks or resistance directed against the government orders, the defense of homeland and the preservation of public order.
Article 2—Army, independent corp and division commanders are allowed to transfer and relocate the village and town population in matters related to the military affair or if they feel there is an activity of espionage and treason.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_Law_of_Deportation
You can't have it both ways though. If Israel fires back at Hezbollah and civilians are killed then it is committing war crimes and if it asks the civilians to leave then it is committing war crimes. In previous wars in Lebanon civilians were asked to leave and then eventually returned and so there are numerous similar examples where Israel's instructions and the situation was similar and there was no ethnic cleansing.
Interesting, based on your comment Hezbollah did that from Lebanese territories for no reason.
"Lebanese armed group Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel in response to the United States-Israeli war on Iran. Israeli forces have also launched a ground invasion of southern Lebanon."
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/5/at-least-14-people-k...
> Israel's self defense actions
> this is a war crime
Wow-wow just stop that bs. Without israel that region would be much safer.
Last I checked Lebanon was a separate country. So Lebanon decided to join the war against the US and Israel and now the consequences of that are Israel's fault?
Wow-wow just stop that bs. Without Israel people in the region would be murdering each other just like they did in Syria, in the Iran-Iraq war, in Yemen, in Lebanon's civil war etc. Maybe if those countries stopped attacking Israel they wouldn't be in war Mr. warmonger.
EDIT: It's worth mentioning that an attack on another country is not a legal reason according to international law to attack a third country. The critics of Israel and the US are claiming those started an "illegal war" on Iran so by that same rationale Lebanon started an illegal war on Israel.
> Maybe if those countries stopped attacking Israel they wouldn't be in war Mr. warmonger.
Maybe if Israel stopped violently expropriating Arab lands, and assaulting and raping Arabs without consequences. It’s really not that complicated.
This is nonsense and you know it.
Seems there are two parallel developments here:
a) Rise of alternate forms of organizing trust. People distrust government or other organizations, and turn to alternative forms of organization and trust.
b) Rise of digital wallet/transfer systems that are fundamentally about charging for throughput/withdrawals. The article mentions that banks are restricting withdraws - presumably because banks need deposits to stay liquid. Whish on the other hand doesn't care - it makes money as a % of each transaction.
Hasn't Hawala been a thing in Lebanon for hundreds of years? It doesn't seem like a novel development at all, besides the digital tools. Informal money transfer systems are not new thing challenging the banks at all. The banks are the new thing here.
Damn I wonder why they are displaced. No one to blame for sure.