At Beaufort, Israel confronts the futility of withdrawal

Twenty-six years after Israel, under the cover of darkness, withdrew from Beaufort, it returned Saturday.

For most Israelis born in the last four decades, Beaufort conjures up not the bloody battle for the castle during the opening days of the 1982 First Lebanon War, but rather the 2007 movie of the same name.

They remember the film more than the fortress itself. And through Joseph Cedar’s lens, Beaufort became synonymous with futility.

The movie tells the story of soldiers manning the outpost in the final days before Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. Through that prism, Beaufort became the symbol of the final, weary chapter of Israel’s long stay in Lebanon.

The sight of the Israeli flag and the Golani Brigade flag once again fluttering atop the castle conjures up futility as well – but of a different kind.

Not the futility of remaining in Lebanon, but the futility of believing that withdrawal would bring peace.

Like the return to Gaza – where Israel now controls roughly 60% of a territory it completely evacuated in 2005, a figure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently said could rise to 70% – the return to Beaufort underscores a harsh lesson many Israelis have learned over the last quarter-century: Giving up territory brings neither peace nor security.

For years, opponents of Israel’s presence in Lebanon pointed to Beaufort as proof that holding territory was futile. Look, they argued, Israel sat in southern Lebanon for 18 years and got not peace but a grinding war of attrition.

But withdrawing from Beaufort did not bring peace. Withdrawing from Lebanon did not bring peace. Withdrawing from Gaza did not bring peace.

Instead, those withdrawals – most Israelis now believe – brought the threat closer to their doorstep.

Israel left Lebanon in 2000 because it concluded that holding the security zone there was futile. It returned there in 2026 because it concluded that believing you could count on deterrence, on the goodwill of the Lebanese Army to disarm Hezbollah, or on international guarantees and peacekeepers was equally futile.

It is a harsh reality. But that is the reality.

Israel left Beaufort in 2000, hoping it would never have to return. The same hope animated the withdrawal from Gaza five years later.

The logic seemed sound. Why keep soldiers in hostile territory if withdrawing could reduce friction, lower casualties, and create space for diplomacy? Why remain responsible for populations who did not want Israel there? Why continue paying a price in blood for territory many believed could safely be relinquished?

The events of the last two decades, however, have upended that logic for many Israelis.

The October 7 massacre was not merely a terrorist attack. It was the collapse of a strategic concept. The same is true regarding Lebanon. The rockets, missiles, anti-tank fire, tunnels, and drones that have repeatedly threatened northern communities since the withdrawal have led many to ask whether the price paid for leaving ultimately exceeded the price of staying.

That does not mean remaining in Lebanon indefinitely was sustainable, or that the security zone was a success. It does mean that many Israelis concluded that withdrawals, once presented as solutions, proved to be anything but and allowed threats to metastasize.

Why is Beaufort significant?

The Israeli flag flying once again over the Beaufort fortress reflects that change in thinking. It symbolizes not only a military operation but also a profound loss of faith in the idea that if Israel simply leaves territory, others will assume responsibility and somehow solve the problem.

That is one reason Beaufort is significant.

It is not just another hilltop. It is perhaps the most potent symbol of Israel’s previous Lebanon entanglement. Yet the return there on Saturday was not met by a public asking, “How could you?” It was met largely by a public comfortable with the move and, in many cases, demanding even more aggressive military action.

The hope in both Lebanon and Gaza was that others would assume responsibility: the Lebanese government in one case; the Palestinian Authority in the other. That hope proved illusory.

The image of Israeli troops back at Beaufort is striking because it reverses one of the defining images of then-prime minister Ehud Barak’s withdrawal 26 years ago.

For years, Hezbollah portrayed that withdrawal as proof that sustained resistance could force Israel from Lebanese territory. Beaufort became one of the central symbols of that narrative.

Now, Israeli soldiers are back.

That does not mean Israel intends to permanently reoccupy southern Lebanon. But it does challenge one of Hezbollah’s foundational claims: that territory from which Israel withdraws is permanently beyond its reach.

Yet the significance of Beaufort is not only symbolic.

The Crusaders built their fortress where they did in the 12th century for a good reason. Perched atop a dominant ridge overlooking the Litani River valley and large swaths of southern Lebanon, the site commands some of the most important terrain in the area. Geography, unlike politics, does not change.

Whoever controls Beaufort enjoys commanding views over routes leading toward Nabatiya and the Bekaa Valley. The hill provides a tremendous perch for surveillance and intelligence gathering, may make it easier to track drones, and complicates Hezbollah’s freedom of movement in the surrounding area. It also provides a point from which the IDF can project power deeper into southern Lebanon.

An important card in any future negotiations with Lebanon

Taking Beaufort required crossing the Litani River, and that in itself sends a signal. It demonstrates a willingness to operate deeper inside Lebanon at a time when many believed the US would oppose such a move.

The capture of Beaufort also gives Israel an important card in any future negotiations with Lebanon. Battlefield gains often translate into diplomatic leverage.

Militarily, then, Beaufort is important. But it may be even more important psychologically.

For decades, Hezbollah portrayed southern Lebanon as the place where it expelled Israel. Beaufort stood as perhaps the clearest symbol of that achievement. The Israeli flag flying there today tells a very different story: that Hezbollah did not permanently drive Israel from Lebanon. Rather, through its actions, it helped bring Israel back.

There is a psychological dimension inside Israel as well.

For years, the Beaufort outpost was associated with casualties, convoy attacks, roadside bombs, and the question of why Israel was in Lebanon in the first place. Today, the same site is being viewed through a completely different lens. Not as a symbol of a military quagmire, but as part of a campaign designed to prevent another October 7-style threat from emerging along Israel’s northern border.

Twenty-six years after Israel, under the cover of darkness, withdrew from Beaufort, it returned on Saturday. It is the same castle, the same ridge, and the same strategic terrain. What has changed is the faith many Israelis once placed in territorial withdrawal as the strategy to ensure security and, ultimately, peace.