Proponents of the security zone policy argue that Israel’s military presence in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza is a pragmatic and unavoidable response to persistent existential threats. From this perspective, the zones serve as a critical defensive perimeter that prevents militant groups from launching cross-border raids, anti-tank fire, or rocket attacks against Israeli civilians in the Galilee and other border regions. By controlling these areas, the Israel Defense Forces can proactively neutralize threats and dismantle underground and surface military infrastructure that would otherwise be used to target Israeli territory.
Supporters emphasize that the responsibility for the current situation lies with the militant organizations operating in these regions. They argue that as long as groups like Hezbollah and Hamas refuse to disarm and continue to act as proxies for regional powers, Israel has a fundamental right and duty to maintain control over the immediate areas surrounding its borders. This approach is seen as a necessary insurance policy, ensuring that the security of Israeli communities is not left to the promises of unstable or hostile actors.
Furthermore, officials maintain that the decision to remain in these zones is a sovereign matter. They argue that Israel does not require external permission to take the actions it deems necessary for its national survival. By holding this ground, the government aims to create a stable, albeit militarized, environment that prevents the recurrence of the large-scale security failures that have plagued the region in the past. For many in Israel, this strategy is the only viable way to ensure long-term safety in a volatile neighborhood.