Israel’s Diaspora Affairs Minister, Amichai Chikli, asserted last weekend that Lebanon should no longer be recognized as a sovereign state, citing Hezbollah's dominance over the southern region. He argued that Hezbollah's control, coupled with the Lebanese government's inability to enforce authority over the southern region, renders the country incapable of fulfilling the criteria of statehood. Consequently, Chikli proposed that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) establish a "buffer zone" within Lebanese territory to protect Israel from Hezbollah missile attacks.
Chikli’s proposal, outlined in a series of social media posts, was backed by three primary reasons: Lebanon's failure to control its southern region, Hezbollah’s unprovoked aggression toward Israel, and the Lebanese government's inability to enforce UN Security Council Resolutions 1559 and 1701, which demand the disbanding of armed groups like Hezbollah. According to Chikli, Israel should no longer evacuate its citizens living near the northern border in response to Hezbollah's actions but should instead extend its military presence into Lebanon to neutralize threats.
Chikli’s solution involves creating a military-controlled buffer zone within Lebanon, encompassing areas from which Hezbollah has launched or may launch missiles and conducted surveillance of Israeli territory. He framed the move as not only a security necessity but also a moral imperative, stating that it is crucial to prevent future displacements of Israeli civilians.
The minister’s suggestion, however, is more than a little controversial. While Chikli frames his argument as a matter of Israeli security, critics argue that such a move could escalate conflict and further destabilize the region. Moreover, the idea of declaring a neighboring state as non-sovereign and thus justifying a military incursion and takeover risks straining Israel’s diplomatic relations and violating international norms regarding territorial integrity (to say the least).
By calling Lebanon an "entity" rather than a state, Chikli undermines Lebanon’s recognized sovereignty and frames the situation solely through the lens of Hezbollah’s influence. Yet, this perspective ignores the complexities of Lebanese governance, which, while deeply flawed, still retains national institutions and sovereignty recognized by the international community.
Chikli’s remarks—although framed as a response to security threats—have wide-reaching implications. His proposal to occupy Lebanese land, while purporting to safeguard Israel, risks heightening tensions and deepening conflict between the two nations. These controversial comments could lead to significant diplomatic fallout, both regionally and globally, as they challenge international norms around state sovereignty and military intervention.
This news has largely flown under the radar of Western media, with coverage confined mostly to regional outlets (as evident in our Deep Dive related articles). When senior Israeli ministers make such bold statements, the underlying message is clear: Israel is aiming to extend the same strategy it has employed in Palestine to other neighboring states like Lebanon, Iran, and Syria (which Chikli also suggested are not real countries). Numerous far-right religious members of Prime Minister Netanyahu's governing coalition have made clear their intention to pursue a "Greater Israel," which would include much of the territory of those neighboring countries. This suggestion by Chikli would seem to be one more step in that direction.
The alarming aspect is that no significant international effort appears to be halting this agenda, allowing Israel to pursue these actions with minimal resistance.
