Israeli Defense Minister Yisrael Katz has directed the Israeli army to maintain its presence in the buffer zone on Mount Hermon throughout the winter months. This buffer zone, occupied after 7 December, has sparked debates within Israel, with some officials suggesting the potential annexation of the area despite initial claims of the occupation being temporary.
According to a statement issued by the Ministry of Defense, Katz emphasized that the Israeli army’s stay in the occupied buffer zone is essential following the fall of the Baathist government in Syria. He instructed the army to ensure its preparedness for prolonged operations in the region during challenging winter conditions.
Previously, Katz had described the occupation as “temporary,” but he now underscores its strategic importance. He stated, “Due to what is happening in Syria, our occupation of Mount Hermon holds significant security value. All necessary measures must be taken to ensure the army’s readiness and its ability to remain in the region under harsh weather conditions.”
Katz convened a meeting with Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi and other military officials to review the situation in Syria. The decision to extend the army’s occupation of Mount Hermon during the winter emerged after this high-level discussion.
Amichai Chikli, Minister of Diaspora Affairs and a member of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, argued for maintaining Israel’s control over Mount Hermon, describing it as a strategic asset.
In contrast, Carmit Valensi, a senior fellow at the Israeli think tank INSS, expressed hope that Israel would respect Syrian territorial integrity once stability returns. Speaking to The National, Valensi remarked, “For now, I think [the occupation] is wise. We are still grappling with the trauma of 7 October, and no one in Israel feels secure leaving the border vulnerable to militant groups. However, Israel must uphold past diplomatic agreements once an alternative regime emerges in Syria.”
Valensi cautioned that a prolonged military presence could strain Israeli forces, which are already engaged on multiple fronts.
Kobi Michal, a senior researcher at the Misgav Institute and INSS, suggested that Israel could maintain military influence in the region without a physical troop presence. He advocated for collaboration with international allies and the establishment of ties with minority groups within Syria.
Israeli historian Tom Segev, known for his works on Israel’s 1967 occupation of the Golan Heights, speculated that retaining the territory might align with historical patterns. “Israel historically does not relinquish land once it has seized it,” Segev noted. However, he acknowledged that the current geopolitical landscape differs significantly from the situation six decades ago.
Segev highlighted that Israel’s interest in the Golan Heights has always been strategic rather than cultural, focusing on the defense of Galilee, a fertile and vital region in northern Israel. He concluded, “Most Israelis do not feel an emotional attachment to Mount Hermon—it is simply a place to ski.”
