عربي English Türkçe اردو فارسى
Logo
Latest News
Features

Displaced Southern Lebanese Fear Second Relocation: Struggling Far from Home

A building destroyed by Israeli bombing in the border town of Khiam (EPA)
A building destroyed by Israeli bombing in the border town of Khiam (EPA)
TT
20
TT

Displaced Southern Lebanese Fear Second Relocation: Struggling Far from Home

A building destroyed by Israeli bombing in the border town of Khiam (EPA)
A building destroyed by Israeli bombing in the border town of Khiam (EPA)

Despite being displaced for ten months, southern Lebanese residents, who fled the war with Israel, are still struggling to adapt to their new lives.

They continue to hope for a return to their homes while fearing the possibility of being displaced again due to the ongoing conflict.

While they are managing as best they can, there is a deep sense of loss over their damaged or destroyed homes and livelihoods.

Some are waiting for the opportunity to return, but others, like Ali Ghandoor, have started over elsewhere.

Ghandoor moved from the border town of Khiam to Nabatieh, where he opened a new restaurant similar to his old one.

“We stayed in Khiam for a month and a half after the war began on October 7, then moved to Zahle for two months. Realizing the war might last longer, I decided to start fresh in Nabatieh,” Ghandoor told Asharq Al-Awsat.

“I rented a place, moved some equipment, and bought new supplies. It’s a risky move, but waiting indefinitely isn’t an option.”

He added that returning to Khiam immediately after the war ends isn’t feasible and predicted it will take at least two years to rebuild.

“We’ll likely stay in Nabatieh and hope we won’t have to move again if the war worsens.”

Moreover, Ghandoor and his family are struggling to adjust to their new life.

“We’ve been hit hard emotionally, mentally, and financially,” he admitted.

“The income from this new restaurant is much lower than what I had in Khiam, but at least it provides for us,” he explained.

As the new school year approaches, Ghandoor hopes to enroll his children in a local school after a difficult year with online classes.

Like Ghandoor, Umm Suleiman and George are waiting for the war to end. Umm Suleiman moved from Yaroun, a border town, to Babilieh in the Sidon district.

George fled from Dibbail to Metn; both towns are in the Bint Jbeil district.

Umm Suleiman lives in Babilieh with her husband, daughter, and son-in-law, staying in a friend’s house for free.

George and his family, along with his two sisters, are staying in their brother’s house in Dekwaneh, Metn, while he is in Germany. Both families are trying to adjust, hoping to return home soon.

“We left our home after October 7, when the bombing got worse. We didn’t think the war would drag on this long. It’s affecting our health—we feel sick and tired all the time. But we’re hopeful and determined to return home soon. We won’t let the Israelis force us out of our land,” Umm Suleiman told Asharq Al-Awsat.

Being displaced has also separated Umm Suleiman from her family, with each member moving to different places.

“I’m far from my family and only see them occasionally now. We used to live together in the same town,” she said.

Moreover, she worries about having to move again if the war expands and is concerned about rising rental prices.

“During the 2006 war, we went to Syria, but that’s not possible now. We just want to get back home as soon as we can,” said Umm Suleiman.

George, from Dibbail, feels somewhat safe in Dekwaneh, where he’s staying, believing it’s less likely to be targeted if the war worsens. Still, he finds it hard to adjust after living in the south.

“We’re fortunate to have moved into our brother’s house, and I’m teaching online like my children. But my sister, who’s also a teacher, couldn’t handle the displacement and went back to Dibbail about a month ago,” said George.

“We know our situation is better than many, but we’re all waiting for the war to end so we can return home. We’re tired of being displaced and can’t take much more,” he added.

Most Viewed

 
Features

India and Pakistan Don’t Fight Wars Like Other Countries. Here’s Why 

This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)
This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)
TT
20
TT

India and Pakistan Don’t Fight Wars Like Other Countries. Here’s Why 

This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)
This photograph taken on May 9, 2025 shows the Neelum River flowing through Muzaffarabad, the capital of Pakistan-administered Kashmir. (AFP)

India and Pakistan have fought three full-scale wars since they gained independence from Britain in 1947. They’ve also had dozens of skirmishes and conflicts, including one atop a glacier dubbed the coldest and highest-altitude battlefield in the world.

The latest escalation follows a deadly gun attack on tourists that India blames Pakistan for — Islamabad denies any connection. But they don’t fight wars like other countries.

The dominant factor is their nuclear weapons arsenal, a distinct way of deterring major attacks and a guarantee that fighting doesn’t get out of hand, even when the situation is spiraling.

Here’s how — and why — India and Pakistan fight the way they do:

Their nuclear arsenals can destroy each other “Pakistan and India have enough nuclear weapons to wipe the other side out several times over,” says security analyst Syed Mohammed Ali, who is based in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital. “Their nuclear weapons create a scenario for mutually assured destruction.”

Both countries have “deliberately developed” the size and range of their stockpile to remind the other about the guarantee of mutually assured destruction, he adds.

Neither country discloses their nuclear capabilities but each is thought to have between 170 and 180 warheads that are short-, long- and medium-range. Both countries have different delivery systems — ways of launching and propelling these weapons to their targets.

The arsenals are a defensive move to prevent and deter further fighting, because “neither side can afford to initiate such a war or hope to achieve anything from it,” Ali says.

It might not look this way to the outsider, but nuclear weapons are a reminder to the other side that they can't take things too far.

But the secrecy around their arsenals means that it's unclear if Pakistan or India can survive a first nuclear strike and retaliate, something called “second-strike capability.”

This capacity stops an opponent from attempting to win a nuclear war through a first strike by preventing aggression that could lead to nuclear escalation.

Without this capability, there is, in theory, nothing to stop one side from launching a warhead at the other.

Kashmir at the crux of the dispute India and Pakistan have each laid claim to Kashmir since 1947, when both gained independence, and border skirmishes have created instability in the region for decades. Each country controls a part of Kashmir, which is divided by a heavily militarized border.

The two archrivals have also fought two of their three wars over Kashmir — a disputed Himalayan region divided between the them where armed insurgents resist Indian rule. Many Muslim Kashmiris support the rebels’ goal of uniting the territory, either under Pakistani rule or as an independent country.

Border flare-ups and militant attacks in India-controlled Kashmir have prompted New Delhi to take an increasingly tough position on Islamabad, accusing it of “terrorism.”

In the latest conflict, India punished Pakistan by hitting what it said were sites used by Pakistan-backed militants linked to a gun massacre last month.

A conventional military imbalance India is one of the biggest defense spenders in the world, with $74.4 billion in 2025, according to the Military Balance report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies. It’s also one of the world’s largest arms importers.

Pakistan is no slouch, spending $10 billion last year, but it can never match India’s deep pockets. India also has more than double the number of active armed forces personnel than Pakistan does.

While India’s armed forces are traditionally focused on Pakistan, it has another nuclear neighbor to contend with, China, and it is increasingly concerned with maritime security in the Indian Ocean. Those are two factors that Pakistan doesn’t have to consider in its security paradigm.

Pakistan's long and narrow shape, together with the outsized role of the military in foreign policy, makes it easier to move the armed forces around and prioritize defense.

A pattern of escalation and defusing Neither Pakistan or India are in a hurry to announce their military moves against the other and, as seen in the current flare-up of hostilities, it can take a while for confirmation of strikes and retaliation to surface.

But both launch operations into territories and airspace controlled by the other. Sometimes these are intended to damage checkpoints, installations, or sites allegedly used by militants.

They are also aimed at embarrassing or provoking — forcing leaders to bow to public pressure and respond, with the potential for miscalculation.

Many of these activities originate along the Line of Control, which divides Kashmir between India and Pakistan. It's largely inaccessible to the media and public, making it hard to independently verify claims of an attack or retaliation.

Such incidents raise international alarm, because both countries have nuclear capabilities, forcing attention back to India and Pakistan and, eventually, their competing claims over Kashmir.

The fear of nuclear war has put the two countries at the top of the agenda, competing with the papal conclave, US President Donald Trump’s policies, and the Sean “Diddy” Combs trial in the news cycle.

No desire for conquest, influence or resources Pakistan and India’s battles and skirmishes are away from the public eye.

Strikes and retaliation are late at night or early in the morning and, with the exception of the drone attacks on Thursday, they mostly take place away from densely populated urban centers. It shows that neither country has the desire to significantly harm the other’s population. Attacks are either described as surgical or limited.

Neither country is motivated by competition for resources. Pakistan has huge mineral wealth, but India isn't interested in these and, while there are stark ideological differences between Hindu-majority India and Muslim-majority Pakistan, they don’t seek control or influence over the other.

Other than Kashmir, they have no interest in claiming the other’s territory or exercising dominance.