Israel revisits southern Lebanon buffer zone debate despite painful past

As fighting intensifies along Israel’s northern border, the question of whether to re-establish a security zone in southern Lebanon has returned to the center of the national security debate, reviving unresolved tensions from a conflict that extends over more than two decades.

Twenty-six years after Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in May 2000, the IDF is once again operating beyond the border, prompting renewed scrutiny of whether a buffer zone could better protect northern communities. For some former security officials, the current reality highlights what they see as a structural flaw in Israel’s defensive posture. “Their number one principle in defense says that a defensive line will always be breached,” said Col. (res.) Ronen Cohen, a former Mossad section head. “In places where the most important thing you want to protect is too far forward, like the communities in the North, you cannot have your defense be behind them. The civilians cannot be cannon fodder.”

Supporters of a renewed security zone argue that a limited, controlled strip of land could create strategic depth and reduce the risk of infiltration. They point to evolving battlefield conditions and technology as factors that could make such a model more effective today than in the past. “A small strip, from two to a maximum of five kilometers, with proper ground deployment, with obstacles, with today's technologies, could certainly be enough,” Cohen said, describing what he views as a practical approach to addressing immediate threats.

Maj. Gen. (res.) Yossi Peled, former head of the IDF Northern Command, also points to the relative calm achieved during parts of Israel’s previous presence in southern Lebanon. “They fire machine guns into the communities. I don't know when the last time you were in the North was. They destroyed our north,” he said. “The security zone provided an answer to that. There were dozens, if not hundreds, of infiltration attempts. We killed them, some inside the security zone, some on the fence. For five years, not a civilian was even scratched in the Northern Command.”

Yet for others, the memory of the security zone is inseparable from the cost it imposed. Critics argue that maintaining a permanent military presence across the border risks drawing Israel into a prolonged and attritional conflict. “We took casualties on a weekly basis,” said Maj. Gen. (res.) Nimrod Sheffer, former head of the IDF Planning Branch. “A security zone guarantees that there will be constant fighting there. All the time. I think it's a bad idea.” He added that such a strategy would not address the primary threat facing Israel today. “It might prevent certain forces from infiltrating communities, I accept that, but it guarantees continued fighting. It doesn't guarantee a state of security. Even if the IDF enters another 50 kilometers north, there will always be missiles that can hit northern Israel.”

The historical precedent continues to weigh heavily on the debate. What began as a temporary deployment in Lebanon evolved into a prolonged military presence that many in Israel came to view as a “Lebanese quagmire.” Public opposition grew over time, culminating in the unilateral withdrawal ordered by then-PM Ehud Barak. Reflecting on that decision, Peled argued that it was driven by domestic pressure rather than strategic necessity. “Because we broke under pressure, public pressure that Ehud Barak used,” he said. “We were not willing to pay the price that the Israel Defense Forces pays to sustain the State of Israel.”

Watch the full report:

Others point to the aftermath of the withdrawal as evidence of unresolved challenges. Hezbollah quickly moved to the border, and tensions resumed within months. Still, some former officials argue that a long-term solution must involve political arrangements rather than territorial control. Sheffer cited the possibility of agreements with the Lebanese government to limit Hezbollah’s presence. “We want to make an agreement with the Lebanese government that won't allow Hezbollah to carry weapons, that won't allow Hezbollah to be south of a certain line,” he said, suggesting that such an arrangement could align Israeli security interests with Lebanese sovereignty.

As the current conflict unfolds, Israeli leaders face a familiar dilemma with no clear resolution. Military options, including a renewed buffer zone, promise immediate tactical advantages but carry the risk of long-term entanglement. Diplomatic alternatives offer a different path but depend on regional dynamics that remain uncertain. For many involved in the debate, the lessons of the past remain central, even as the realities on the ground continue to evolve.