Do Israel’s large-scale evacuation orders in Lebanon comply with the rules of IHL?

Please see below the full Q&A (available in English and Arabic).

In the context of escalating hostilities in the Middle East, the IHL Centre is launching a series of short Questions and Answers addressing key IHL issues arising from the current situation. The objective is to provide clear and concise explanations in an accessible format that is easy to navigate for diverse audiences. This is the second question in that series - see the previous question here.

Since early March 2026, escalating hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah have been accompanied by large-scale evacuation orders issued by the Israeli military across Lebanon, affecting more than 100 towns and villages as well as parts of Beirut’s southern suburbs and the Bekaa. The IHL Centre's new Q&A finds that these orders raise serious concerns under international humanitarian law (IHL), particularly in relation to effective advance warnings and the prohibition of forcible displacement. 

Under IHL, warnings must be effective: they must be timely, specific, understandable, and give civilians a real opportunity to reach safety. The paper finds that broad, area-based evacuation orders covering entire towns or neighbourhoods, often with little time to leave and no clear path to safety, do not meet that standard. It also recalls that a warning does not make an otherwise unlawful attack lawful, and that civilians who remain do not lose their protection. 

The Q&A also examines the prohibition of forcible displacement. It notes that evacuations may only be justified in very narrow circumstances, must be temporary, and must be accompanied by safeguards for civilians, including adequate shelter, safety, hygiene and the right to return. Displacement cannot be justified where the underlying danger stems from unlawful attacks or where less harmful alternatives exist. 

The paper concludes that the scale of the orders, the limited time given to civilians, and the wider pattern of destruction and movement restrictions all point to serious violations of IHL. It also recalls that indiscriminate attacks, disproportionate attacks and forcible displacement may amount to war crimes entailing individual criminal responsibility.

Please see below the full Q&A (available in English and Arabic).