In a move seen as expanding buffer zones beyond its borders — similar to models applied in Gaza and Syria — Israel is advancing a disguised occupation under what it calls the “Yellow Line” in southern Lebanon, amid mounting warnings of worsening humanitarian and field conditions.
In April, the Israeli army announced the imposition of the “Yellow Line” south of the Litani River, a notional boundary designating the area stretching to the border as a “security buffer zone,” in a step reminiscent of the Gaza model.
According to Israel, the zone is intended to prevent displaced residents from returning and to target any armed activity, classifying it as a “combat zone” not subject to ceasefire understandings. The move suggests an attempt to entrench a new reality on the ground while preemptively justifying future attacks in the area.
The development follows the latest war with the Lebanese group Hezbollah, during which Israeli forces focused on ground operations, advancing up to about 10 kilometers (6.2 miles) into Lebanese territory, from the outskirts of Rashaya to the towns of Naqoura and Ras al-Bayada.
Amid these developments, the situation appears to be moving toward a redefinition of field dynamics. The “Yellow Line” no longer seems a temporary security measure but rather an indicator of an open-ended phase of military and political tension, with no clear resolution in sight.
The Israeli line faces Lebanese rejection, particularly as it stretches across dozens of southern towns, forcing residents to flee from border areas to the outskirts of the Arqoub region — which includes seven main villages in the Hasbaya district in the Nabatieh governorate: Shebaa, Kfar Shouba, Hebbariyeh, Kfar Hammam, Rashaya al-Fakhar, Mari, and Fardis.
In this context, Hezbollah lawmaker Hussein Fadlallah said the “Yellow Line” and all consequences of the war would be overturned, signaling rejection of any attempt to impose this reality.
The measure also revives memories of the “border strip” Israel established between 1978 and 2000, though under different regional and geopolitical conditions.
Both measures share the goal of creating a buffer zone inside Lebanon that restricts civilian and military access near Israel’s border, allowing Tel Aviv to maintain fire or military control.
Both have also led to displacement or prevented residents from returning to dozens of villages, alongside systematic destruction or military domination that renders the area dangerous or off-limits.
However, the earlier “border strip,” launched after the 1978 Litani operation and expanded following the 1982 invasion, reflected a direct ground occupation, with some residents allowed to remain under indirect Israeli control.
The key difference now lies in the scale of destruction, with border towns experiencing widespread demolition, bulldozing, and displacement far exceeding previous periods.
Israel says the aim of the new buffer zone is to protect its northern settlements from potential rocket fire.
But the future of this belt remains unclear, particularly given the military and financial burdens it may entail, as well as its link to the issue of Hezbollah’s weapons.
While the Litani River represents a natural barrier to Israeli expansion, field realities do not clearly define the limits of actual control amid ongoing tension and uncertainty over several towns.
From areas near the border town of Khiam, Anadolu observed widespread destruction in villages within the “Yellow Line,” particularly Khiam itself, where signs of explosions and bulldozed homes were visible from hundreds of meters away.
Anadolu’s correspondent reported repeated demolitions of residential buildings and rising columns of smoke from multiple sites, reflecting the scale of devastation.
Anadolu also spoke with local officials and residents who said Israeli operations caused extensive destruction of infrastructure and property and prevented residents from returning.
The Israeli army has repeatedly published footage of demolishing hundreds of buildings, claiming they were “Hezbollah infrastructure,” despite declaring adherence to the ceasefire.
Israeli escalation in Lebanon continues despite a ceasefire announced on April 17 for 10 days and later extended by three weeks, while Hezbollah says it is responding to Israeli violations of the agreement.
Qassem al-Qadri, the head of the Union of Municipalities of the border town of Arqoub, said towns in the region adhered during the war to a “civil, nonviolent approach,” stressing there was no armed presence.
In an interview with Anadolu, he said local authorities “are part of the Lebanese state and do not possess weapons or military positions,” adding that the area has been free of any military presence since the ceasefire.
Al-Qadri said that after the initial ceasefire and the withdrawal of Hezbollah elements, “there was no longer any military presence in the area, which should remove any pretext for targeting it.”
He added that this approach aligned with the Lebanese state’s position that the war was a regionally imposed conflict, noting that it helped spare some Arqoub towns from greater destruction compared with other areas.
However, he said municipalities and residents were surprised after the truce by the establishment of a security belt stretching from Naqoura to Khiam.
“Israeli forces immediately began bulldozing homes, destroying infrastructure and preventing residents from entering, in a systematic destruction of all aspects of life,” he said.
He added that the belt did not remain limited but gradually expanded toward Arqoub, reaching a width of 3-5 km (1.8-3.1 mi), effectively isolating villages, cutting vital roads, and preventing farmers from accessing their land.
Al-Qadri pointed to worsening living conditions due to the geographic division imposed by Israel, particularly a water crisis caused by restricted access to key sources requiring maintenance and operation. Some towns have faced water outages for weeks, he said.
He added that in response, the Union of Arqoub Municipalities submitted memorandums to Lebanese officials and UN peacekeeping forces (UNIFIL), calling for intervention to ensure freedom of movement and access to basic services.
He outlined the belt’s path as extending from the town of Mari through Bastara and Rabaat al-Teben to the southern heights of Shebaa, then to the hills separating Shebaa from Shwaya and Ain Qinia.
“This extension cuts essential arteries and isolates entire areas such as Shebaa from Rashaya al-Wadi and Hasbaya,” he said.
Al-Qadri said the measure cannot be separated from political pressure linked to ongoing negotiations.
In April, Lebanon and Israel held two rounds of direct talks in Washington, DC, for the first time in 43 years under US sponsorship, while Hezbollah maintains its rejection of direct negotiations with Israel.
On April 20, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said the talks aim to halt hostilities, end Israeli occupation of southern areas, and deploy the Lebanese army along internationally recognized borders.
Al-Qadri expressed hope that Israel would withdraw to those borders, stressing that the new lines “lack any legal legitimacy.”
Observers say the “Yellow Line” may serve not only as what Israel calls a “forward defense line" but also as leverage in negotiations to pressure Lebanon into an agreement aligned with Israeli objectives—whether by justifying future attacks or consolidating occupation and depopulating the area.
Before the truce, Israel launched an offensive on March 2 that killed 2,509 people, wounded 7,755, and displaced more than 1.6 million — roughly one-fifth of Lebanon’s population — according to official figures.
Israel continues to occupy areas in southern Lebanon, some for decades and others since the 2023–2024 war, while also occupying Palestinian territories and parts of Syria and refusing to withdraw or allow the establishment of an independent Palestinian state as outlined in international resolutions.
* Writing by Mohammad Sio in Istanbul.
news_share_descriptionsubscription_contact
