Beyond buffer zones: Southern Lebanon may need a permanent Israeli presence - opinion

For decades, Israeli governments have answered that question with caution and restraint. The prevailing assumption had been that Israel should push hostile forces away from the border, establish a temporary buffer zone and then withdraw, hoping that international guarantees or diplomatic arrangements would prevent the enemy from returning.

But experience proved how faulty that approach was.

The security zone that Israel maintained in southern Lebanon from 1985 until its withdrawal in 2000 did not bring lasting quiet to the Galilee. Instead, it became a grinding war of attrition that strengthened Hezbollah politically and militarily. When Israel ultimately did pull out, Hezbollah celebrated the move as a victory and used it to justify its continued campaign of terror.

The lesson should be obvious: Buffer zones do not create durable security. They merely postpone the next war.

For years, Israeli strategists have recognized that the Litani River constitutes the natural defensive line in southern Lebanon. As early as 1978, during Operation Litani, Israel pushed northward to that river in an effort to remove terrorist bases that were launching attacks against Israeli civilians.

The logic was clear then and remains so today: Pushing hostile forces north of the Litani would significantly increase the distance between Israel’s population centers and the rocket arsenals aimed at them.

But merely creating another security zone is not enough.

A growing movement in Israel has begun to argue that the only way to guarantee lasting security in the North is not merely military control of territory but the establishment of permanent Jewish communities there. One such initiative is Uri Tzafon (“Awaken, O North”), an organization advocating the settlement of southern Lebanon as a long-term security solution.

According to the movement’s proponents, wherever there is no civilian presence, the army eventually leaves, creating a vacuum that hostile forces inevitably fill.

That dynamic played out precisely in southern Lebanon after Israel’s withdrawal in 2000. Once the IDF departed, Hezbollah quickly entrenched itself along the border, building an arsenal of rockets and a network of tunnels.

Advocates of settlement argue that the only way to prevent this cycle from repeating itself is to create facts on the ground that cannot easily be reversed.

While such proposals may strike some observers as radical, they are in fact rooted in a broader historical pattern.

Throughout Israel’s history, territorial control, combined with civilian settlement, has often been the most effective means of securing vulnerable frontiers. The Golan Heights provide a striking example. After Israel liberated the territory in 1967 and established Jewish communities there, the once-volatile border with Syria gradually became one of Israel’s quietest.

Similarly, the Galilee itself – once sparsely populated and vulnerable – became secure only after successive waves of Jewish settlement anchored Israel’s presence there.

Proponents of extending that model northward into southern Lebanon argue that the same principle applies today.

The idea is straightforward: If Hezbollah is pushed north of the Litani River and Israel maintains control of the territory south of it, the establishment of Jewish communities there could transform the region from a temporary military zone into a stable frontier.

Such communities would serve not merely as symbolic outposts but as strategic anchors that reinforce Israeli sovereignty and deter future aggression.

This argument also rests on another, often overlooked historical reality: The current border between Israel and Lebanon is a relatively recent creation.

Following the collapse of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, Britain and France drew new boundaries across the Middle East as part of their colonial arrangements. Those lines, many of them arbitrary, eventually became the borders of modern states.

Historically speaking, the region that today constitutes southern Lebanon is, in fact, part of the Land of Israel.

Biblical sources describe the borders of Canaan as extending northward toward Sidon, and the territory of the tribes of Israel included it as well.

The Jewish presence in the area continued for centuries. Jewish pilgrims once traveled to the Tomb of Zebulun in Sidon, and Jewish holy sites dotted the region.

None of this alone determines modern policy. But it does remind us that today’s borders are not eternal truths; they are the product of historical circumstances that can, and perhaps should, change.

Critics assert that such a policy would provoke international backlash, strain alliances, and require significant military resources to sustain. These concerns deserve serious consideration, but they must be weighed against the proven costs of repeated withdrawals and past mistakes.

Every time Israel has withdrawn from territory without establishing lasting control, whether in southern Lebanon in 2000 or Gaza in 2005, the result has been the emergence of heavily armed hostile entities along its borders.

Hence, Israel now faces a choice.

It can repeat the familiar pattern: conduct a successful military operation, push Hezbollah temporarily away from the border, and then withdraw under international pressure, only to watch the organization possibly rebuild and prepare for the next war.

Or it can adopt a strategy grounded in historical experience by incorporating southern Lebanon into sovereign Israel and settling it with Jews.

After all, security in the Middle East rarely comes from temporary arrangements or diplomatic assurances. It comes from presence, permanence, and resolve.

If Israel truly wants to ensure lasting quiet in the Galilee, it must recognize a fundamental truth: Borders defended only by soldiers can eventually be challenged. But those anchored by thriving communities are the ones that will endure.