After more than a year of war, IDF forces are present in three areas outside Israel’s borders: the Gaza Strip, southern Lebanon, and the Syrian Golan. What will the future of these areas be? Will they remain under Israeli military control? Will Israeli settlements be established in them? These are crucial questions for Israel’s security, its relations with neighbors, and its standing in the world.
The decision to continue holding the territories of Judea and Samaria after they were captured in the 1967 Six-Day War had an enormous impact on the State of Israel and Israeli society – and continues to this day. The decisions regarding the three areas under Israeli control following the October 7, 2023 Israel-Hamas War will be equally decisive.
It is not yet clear what the political leadership will decide on this issue, and whether Israel will remain in these areas, or parts of them, in the long term. But we can ask: What does the Israeli public, in whose name these decisions will be made, want? Does the public support a permanent military presence or civilian settlement in each of the areas currently controlled by the IDF?
The Institute for Liberty and Responsibility at Reichman University examined this question through a public opinion poll in early January among a representative sample of 811 Israelis. Similar to many other questions regarding the management of the war, we found a large gap between Jewish and Arab citizens in Israel on this issue.
A very low percentage of Arab citizens (17%) support a permanent IDF presence in Gaza, southern Lebanon, or the Syrian Golan; a minimal percentage of Arabs (5%) support establishing Israeli settlements in these areas.
The picture is entirely different among the Jewish public. A majority of Jewish citizens want a permanent IDF presence in each of the three areas to enhance national security. Some 59% support military presence in Gaza; 61% favor permanent IDF presence in southern Lebanon; and 63% in the Syrian Golan and Mount Hermon areas.
Regarding support for establishing Israeli settlements, support among the Jewish public is lower but still significant. Some 36% of Jewish citizens express support for Israeli settlement in Gaza; 27% want to establish Israeli settlements in southern Lebanon; and 32% in the Syrian Golan. This means that about a third of Jews in Israel support settlement outside the state’s borders.
It’s important to note that most support for settlement, as well as permanent military deployment, comes from right-wing voters. In particular, these ideas receive backing from the religious public. For example, the idea of permanent IDF presence in southern Lebanon enjoys a large majority of 86% among the ultra-Orthodox public and 77% among religious Zionists, compared to only 44% among secular Jews.
Interestingly, the ultra-Orthodox, who refuse to serve in the military, are the most enthusiastic supporters of expanding Israel’s borders, which would cost soldiers’ lives.
THE DESIRE for permanent Israeli presence, military or civilian, in areas captured in war contradicts one of the basic norms of international law.
The current norm
This norm, enshrined in the UN Charter, prohibits forcible change of international borders and stipulates that states must not seize foreign territory through military means; territorial changes are legitimate only with the consent of all parties.
This norm is considered a central mechanism for promoting peace and stability in the world, and states generally comply with it. Before the 20th century, territorial conquest by force was common and acceptable but in recent decades such cases have been very rare, and they face international opposition.
The international community refuses to recognize Israeli control over territories captured in 1967; Iraq’s conquest of Kuwait in 1990 led to an international military operation that ended that occupation; and Russia’s attempt to take over Ukraine caused global shock and brought broad support for Ukraine against the invading Russian army.
Our findings show that large segments of the Jewish public in Israel do not accept the international norm against territorial conquest. Many Israelis believe that forcible seizure of foreign territory may be legitimate.
However, the public does distinguish between different purposes of territorial seizure: holding foreign territory by the military for defensive purposes receives broader support than civilian settlement in that territory.
Evaluating public opinion requires us to consider the difficult circumstances we are in. Israel is still in a painful war with heavy costs – a war that shattered Israelis’ sense of security and clarified the severity of the threats they face.
Against this background, one can understand the support for a permanent IDF presence in Gaza, southern Lebanon, and the Syrian Golan.
Even if these areas are not ours, holding them is seen as vital to our security. But security considerations will struggle to justify settlement in those areas in stark contradiction to the norm prohibiting territorial conquest.
We must remember that the security benefit of holding territory in Gaza, southern Lebanon, or the Syrian Golan is only one of the relevant considerations.
Against possible security gains, we must weigh the economic cost of presence in those areas; the burden on the army and reserve force; the price in soldiers’ lives; and the negative international response to conduct that violates international law.
Israel needs to have an open and serious discussion about the justifications for permanent control of the territories we captured in the war against the high costs.
This discussion will need to bridge the large gap between the secular public, which mostly prefers to keep Israel within its current borders, and the religious-Zionist and ultra-Orthodox public who hold a broader territorial vision.
Israel’s rehabilitation after the war requires us to reject this broader vision and prefer the norm prohibiting territorial conquest. Civilian settlement and military defense must take place within Israel’s borders.
The writer is a senior research fellow at the Institute for Liberty and Responsibility at Reichman University.