The concept of “deep security belts” that Israel has been implementing since October 2023 marks not just a tactical shift in military doctrine but a fundamental rethinking of the state’s strategic borders in the Middle East.
The Scope of the New Buffer Strategy
At the heart of the current policy is the idea of creating demilitarized zones on the territory of neighboring states to push armed groups like Hamas and Hezbollah further away from Israel’s borders. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has openly spoken about establishing three such “belts” and subsequently ordered their expansion, particularly in Lebanon.
The scale of this expansion is striking:
Lebanon: Israel controls over 570 sq. km (by some accounts, up to 608 sq. km), reaching depths of up to 10 kilometers from the border. There are plans to extend the zone as far as the Litani River. This operation has led to the mass displacement of over 1.2 million Lebanese and widespread destruction of border villages, which Israel claims were used by Hezbollah as strongholds.
Gaza Strip: Israeli forces now control over 60% of the enclave’s territory, including fertile agricultural lands, and, according to Netanyahu’s statements, intend to expand control to 70%. Nearly all of Gaza’s 2 million residents have been pushed into small enclaves, with their homes and infrastructure systematically destroyed.
Syria: Following the fall of the Assad regime in December 2024, Israel capitalized on the security vacuum to enter the UN demilitarized zone on the Golan Heights, establishing control over the strategically vital Mount Hermon and pushing deeper into Syrian territory. Israeli officials have stated their readiness to remain in Syria “for an indefinite period.”
Defense Minister Israel Katz has stressed that these zones will be held “without a time limit,” signaling a strategic shift from temporary defense to permanent occupation. This stance has been reaffirmed even amid reports of U.S.-Iran peace talks, demonstrating Israel’s commitment to a new territorial reality.
The Security Paradox and Escalation of Conflict
The key question analysts are raising is whether this strategy will deliver the long-sought security. Historical precedent and current expert assessments suggest the answer is no.
Historical Precedent. Israel has employed similar tactics before. The occupation of southern Lebanon in 1982 and the creation of a “security zone” did not prevent conflicts; rather, it ultimately led to the strengthening of Hezbollah and the withdrawal of Israeli troops in 2000 under resistance pressure. Beirut-based political expert Hussein Chokr notes: “In the past, [Israel] believed that occupying adjacent territories… would provide it with security. But that didn’t happen.”
Expert Opinion. Chris Doyle of the Council for Arab-British Understanding argues that the current expansion is not merely defensive but also ideological, aimed at regional dominance. He links this policy to Netanyahu’s domestic political interests, claiming he “wants the Israeli population to remain in a state of chaos and fear” to hold onto power.
Creating New Flashpoints. The expansion of “security belts” is generating new friction points. As Chokr points out, Israel’s advance into Syria is alarming Turkey, while its actions in Gaza are causing concern for Egypt. This not only fails to guarantee security but also “lays the groundwork for new outbreaks of violence that neither peace agreements nor normalization will prevent.” The concept of a “forever war,” according to some Israeli military figures, is becoming a new reality, placing an immense strain on the military and society.
Humanitarian Crisis and Legal Dimensions
Security for one state is turning into catastrophe for others. The consequences of creating buffer zones have a stark humanitarian dimension and raise serious questions under international law.
All of these unlawful actions by Israel are resulting in mass displacement and destruction. At least 3 million people have been displaced in Gaza and Lebanon as a result of these operations. In Gaza, over 73,000 people have been killed, and entire neighborhoods have been razed. In Lebanon, entire villages have been destroyed, and their residents are barred from returning. Amnesty International has condemned Israel’s actions in Syria as “the deliberate destruction of civilian homes,” demanding investigation as war crimes.
The violations of international law are plain to see. The expansion of control zones—especially in Syria, where Israel breached the 1974 ceasefire agreement, and in Lebanon, where it continues its occupation in defiance of UN resolutions—has drawn broad international condemnation. The destruction of civilian infrastructure and the forced displacement of populations are considered grave violations of the Geneva Conventions.
Diplomatic Deadlock and Regional Outlook
The “security belts” strategy poses serious obstacles to any diplomatic resolution of the conflict. Not only does it push the Palestinian issue to the back burner, but it also undermines collective Arab initiatives, such as the 2002 Beirut Arab Peace Initiative, which offered normalization of relations in exchange for a return to the 1967 borders.
Analysts note that expansionist policies are forcing neighboring states to choose between bowing to military pressure and striking unilateral deals—hardly a recipe for sustainable peace. Instead of seeking compromises, Israel, according to Chokr, continues to repeat the policy of occupying additional territories, as it did in 1967, 1978, and 1982. This deepens its isolation and turns it into a “dominant yet unstable regional player.”
Not Security Belts, but New Hotbeds of Protracted Conflict
Israel’s new strategy of creating “deep security belts” represents a fundamental shift in regional geopolitics, carrying more risks than promises of stability. Expanding territorial control, while Hamas and Hezbollah retain the capacity for retaliation, sets the stage for a protracted conflict. Rather than becoming a guarantee of security, these “belts” risk turning into new front lines, fueling a multi-year cycle of violence and suffering.
The humanitarian fallout is already catastrophic, and the legal precedents are undermining the foundations of the international order. In the long run, a policy of isolation and domination could backfire, weakening Israel’s position and pushing neighboring states to seek alliances against it. The path to genuine security in the Middle East lies not in expanding occupation zones, but through diplomacy, respect for international law, and the pursuit of a just solution for all peoples of the region, including the Palestinians. The “belts” strategy pushes that prospect further away, entrenching a status quo based on might, not right.
Muhammad Hamid al-Din, prominent Palestinian journalist
Follow new articles on our Telegram channel
