Haaretz
Amid war with Iran, what was once considered a far-fetched initiative has turned into a systematic campaign supported by lawmakers and the right-wing press: expansion of Israel’s northern borderdeep into Lebanon.
In June 2024, at the height of the war in the Gaza Strip, hundreds of right-wing activists gathered on Zoom to discuss a new border for Israel. The ‘First Lebanon Conference’, as it was called, barely aroused public interest or serious media coverage. The event featured a speech by Dr. Hagai Ben-Artzi, the prime minister’s brother-in-law, who told the participants that the Lebanon border is ‘completely artificial,’ asserting that ‘the Galilee extends deep into Lebanon.’
The organization behind the virtual gathering – Uri Tsafon (‘Awaken, O North – The Movement for the Settlement of Southern Lebanon’) – had been founded only two months earlier, but its ambitions were bombastic on an almost biblical scale. The group’s logo consists of a cypress tree, the national symbol of Lebanon, and a Star of David. Its founders pull no punches about their aims: ‘In order to triumph over the Iranian evil, and in order to stabilize the State of Israel for generations, we must get Lebanon. Southern Lebanon must be under Israeli control,’ according to the (Hebrew) website, which also suggests a variety of activities for its supporters: distributing T-shirts, setting up information booths and holding Zoom talks under the heading ‘Lebanon in the Living Room’ – a nod at ‘Memory in the Living Room,’ an event in which Holocaust survivors tell their stories in private homes.
Map published by the Uri Tsafon movement with Hebrew names for new settlements in southern Lebanon.
Until recently, Uri Tsafon was considered no more than a curiosity, as was also the case with another group called the Bashan Pioneers – which aims to settle Jews in southern Syria – when it was created last year.
Small groups of activists from both of these organizations have occasionally been the subject of reports on evening newscasts after they crossed the country’s borders and endangered both themselves and IDF troops in the vicinity. Just a month ago, a few members of Uri Tsafon crossed over near Kibbutz Yiron, in order to plant saplings in Lebanon as part of an effort they called ‘striking roots, planting security.’
The same movement also recently took pride in another initiative: ‘Because Israel is dragging its feet on this matter, our activists scattered flyers warning about an evacuation of southern Lebanon by themselves.’
However, what was considered two years ago to be a marginal, bizarre phenomenon is now morphing into an organized campaign that is gradually gaining the support of lawmakers and opinion leaders in the religious Zionism community, as well as the right-wing media. The Uri Tsafon campaign downplays the idea of Jewish settlement in Lebanon, but at the same time offers a detailed plan for the conquest and annexation of areas in southern Lebanon and the demarcation of a new, permanent border there. A majority of those involved in such groups also agree on which area should be subsumed within it: the territory south of the Litani River, extending to Israel’s present border with Lebanon – a 25- to 30-kilometer (15- to 20-mile) swath of land.
Thus, with the international community perceiving Israel as a criminal, imperialist country that is out to gobble up its neighbors’ lands, the Israeli right, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the fore, seems to be going out of its way to show, ostensibly, that such a perception is accurate: witness the incursion into Lebanon of the Israel Defense Forces’ 91st Division, among others, within the framework of what military officials this week called ‘activity to expand the forward zone of defense.’
In general the Israeli media is responding with indifference to the ideas bubbling under the surface of the country’s right wing. If there is any interest expressed, it’s usually scorn for the territorial initiatives, which are perceived as delusional – at least until they begin to take on a realistic form. The public, for its part, tends to accept the security, defense-related rationale that is put forward to justify such moves, rather than seeing them as attempts to extend Israel’s reach beyond its borders.
The language is also changing. As early as October 7, 2023, the settler right sought to clothe old ideas in new terminology. For example, the idea of a population transfer was rebranded as the more anodyne ‘relocation.’
In contrast to the media here, its American and European counterparts are following these right-wing initiatives closely. For example, at the start of the current war with Iran, the highly influential right-wing journalist Tucker Carlson urged his large audience to consider the goings-on in Lebanon. Even before the now-escalating confrontation with Tehran, Carlson and other foreign media figures had warned about the Israeli government’s ambition to exploit the current tumult in the region not only to occupy areas in southern Lebanon, but also to redraw the permanent border with that country.
‘I noticed it in the middle of all this chaos,’ Carlson said in a podcast this month, adding, ‘Well, there are a lot of things I don’t notice because chaos is a cover for all kinds of other things that you don’t find out until many years later. Two days after 9/11, something dramatic happened, you never heard about it. Bad people become more powerful in chaos, and they do bad things, and you don’t even notice. But one of the bad things that’s happening is that Israel is taking over southern Lebanon in the middle of this massive war with Iran.’
Carlson is considered the most influential media person on the American right. When he says that ‘Israel, which is one of the single ugliest countries in the world,’ is ‘destroying Beirut, which is one of the prettiest places on the globe’ – tens of millions of Americans happily lap up his words. He has indeed drawn considerable attention to what Israel is doing in Lebanon, and thereby provided an important lesson for the Israeli right: Social media is open to everyone and the world is following developments in Israel with curiosity and suspicion.
In Israel itself, though, this discourse is virtually nonexistent, and when it does take place, it mainly comes from the fringes.
Case in point: This week the Misgav Institute for National Security and Zionist Strategy – which operates under the aegis of the conservative, libertarian Kohelet Policy Forum – proudly posted excerpts of remarks made by one of its experts, former lawmaker Ruth Wasserman Lande. Appearing on the right-wing i24 channel, she referred to what Carlson said, explaining, ‘Egypt is talking about it, Turkey – everyone is talking about a huge conspiracy, according to which Israel is striving to conquer Lebanon. So, no, no! Israel is not striving to conquer Lebanon. But if Lebanon places its land at the disposal of Hezbollah, armed militias, and Hamas, against Israel’s citizens, it is our duty to defend our citizens and remove the threats.’ At that point interviewer, Zvi Yehezkeli, cut in, stressing ‘not to remove’ – ‘to destroy.’
Many members of Knesset, for now, seem unfazed by the criticism being levelled at Israel. During the first week of the war with Iran, MK Amit Halevi (Likud) even called for a revision of the country’s goals – to include the conquest of southern Lebanon. ‘We need a methodical, operational plan whose aim is conquest of the territory, by means of all the branches of the army. Only full control of the area will bring about desired change – not raids after which the forces withdraw and the area remains exposed to the return of the terrorists,’ he said.
‘It’s to be hoped that the incursion of IDF ground forces will not stop before the Litani. There we must remain, to take advantage of a once-in-a-century opportunity to carry out changes on the ground,’ wrote activist Boaz Haetzni.
Although Halevi is a member of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, his remarks were not widely reported. Among the few exceptions were a favorable report on ultranationalist Channel 14 and a reference to them on the right-wing site 0404.
The Bibi-ist network Melukadim News quoted data from a survey, from an unclear source, which was ostensibly conducted among Likud party members. It found that ‘a sweeping 89 percent support the creation of a buffer zone in southern Lebanon as far as the Litani.’ Likud MK Ariel Kallner has also voiced his support: As early as 2024, he said that ‘I do not see the border as sacrosanct,’ and suggested that Jews should settle in southern Lebanon.
In addition to people in Likud, Otzma Yehudit, headed by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, is actively working to aid and encourage settlement initiatives north of the border. Last summer, his colleague Limor Son Har-Melech hosted a ceremony at which she awarded a certificate of appreciation, signed by Ben-Gvir, to members of both the Uri Tsafon and Bashan Pioneers groups. Reading out the text, she praised ‘the pioneers of the settlements, the hilltops and the farms for being significant partners in adding yet another layer to the building of the land.’
The campaign taking shape along these lines has received some mention in the press. Right-wing activist Boaz Haetzni, from the urban settlement of Kiryat Arba, abutting Hebron, published a personal column on March 6 in the mass-circulation newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth in which he too – by an almost cosmic coincidence – described where the new northern border should pass: at the Litani River.
‘The attack by Hezbollah at this time is a gift, and it’s to be hoped that the incursion of IDF ground forces will not stop before the Litani,’ Haetzni wrote. ‘There we must remain, to take advantage of a once-in-a-century opportunity to carry out changes on the ground. And Messrs. Newcombe from Britain and Paulet from France will please excuse us for not adhering to the map they drew [in 1923, demarcating the British and French zones in Lebanon].’
Such sentiments are not the sole purview of the Hebrew-language press.
Recently in an oped in The Jerusalem Post, podcaster Avi Abelow also reached the conclusion that the new northern boundary line should be drawn at the Litani. ‘We have an opportunity not just to win a war, but to reshape the strategic reality of the Middle East by having our enemies understand defeat in their language: by losing land,’ he wrote on March 14.
A week ago, the growing movement in favor of the conquest of southern Lebanon reached a new peak during a panel discussion on ‘The Friday Cabinet’ show on i24 News. Under discussion was a survey conducted by Direct Polls, a company founded by Shlomo Filber, former director general of the Communications Ministry, which toes the line with Netanyahu and found that 62 percent of respondents agreed with the statement that Israel needs to take over southern Lebanon up to the Litani. The anchor, Naveh Dromi, saw this data as proof that ‘Israelis are ready to bite their lips so that Israel will conquer the Litani.’ For his part, IDF Brig. Gen. (res.) Harel Knafo, from Israel’s Defense and Security Forum (aka Habit’honistim), agreed about the conquest, but had reservations about the settlement idea because of the security risks involved.
‘We will seize other things,’ he said. ‘I would like a scorched-earth southern Lebanon. I would want the area from us to the Litani [to be] like the DMZ between South and North Korea. A completely exposed area, nothing in it, not a village, not a person, not a tree. To raze it totally.’
This isn’t only a trial balloon being floated by the right-wing media. The ‘Judaize the Litani’ campaign has not just made do with persuading the coalition’s ‘house’ journalists. In Yedioth, Nadav Eyal, who is himself left of center, also quoted an ‘involved source’ who described the possibility of ‘holding onto the area as far as the Litani as a kind of new security zone.’
Support for that idea has also been forthcoming from Yoaz Hendel, leader of the new Hamiluimnikim (The Reservists) party. However, whereas those who share his dream of picnicking on the Litani want to make the river Israel’s permanent border with Lebanon, and to settle there, he had some reservations. In a manifesto he posted on X, he wrote: ‘How should the State of Israel look in Lebanon? In short: Israeli rule extending to the Litani. Outposts at dominant, high points. [Free] entry and exit of IDF troops. Total destruction of all infrastructure and economic assets of Hezbollah. A population-free area in the 2 kilometers adjacent to the border with Israel.’
So not a word about settlement. Just ethnic cleansing.
But the bigger question here is what Netanyahu wants to achieve. At the First Lebanon Conference, his brother-in-law Ben-Artzi described the modest goal: ‘We can make do with a little. We don’t demand a meter beyond the Euphrates River. Only what was promised us.’