Nournews: The Israeli regime, continuing what critics describe as violations of the ceasefire and ongoing aggression against Lebanon, has claimed control of the historic Beaufort Castle in southern Lebanon. What has attracted attention is Netanyahu’s direct involvement in promoting the event as a major achievement. He described the capture of the strategic fortress as a “dramatic change” in the war against Hezbollah.
In a video message, Netanyahu said: “Today we returned to Beaufort in a different way. We have returned united, determined, and stronger than ever.” He added: “The capture of Beaufort Castle marks a new stage and a fundamental shift in our policy. We have removed the barrier of fear, taken the initiative, and are operating on all fronts—from Syria and Gaza to Lebanon.”
This media campaign comes at a time when battlefield realities appear more complex than the image presented by Israeli officials. At the same time, repeated ceasefire violations by Israel and the United States, along with the silence of many international actors, have once again raised questions about regional security and efforts to end ongoing conflicts.
From “Strategic Victory” to Signs of a Strategic Deadlock
Israeli leaders, particularly Netanyahu, have attempted to portray the capture of Beaufort Castle as a major strategic achievement and the beginning of a new phase in confronting Hezbollah. However, since the killing of Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah and several senior commanders, Israel has repeatedly claimed that Hezbollah had been defeated and that its objectives in Lebanon had been achieved.
The strong emphasis now placed on Beaufort Castle raises questions about those earlier claims. Critics argue that if Hezbollah had already been neutralized, there would be little reason to celebrate the capture of a single position as a major breakthrough.
Military success is usually measured by long-term effectiveness, operational endurance, and the ability to weaken the opponent’s capabilities. At the same time that Netanyahu announced control of the fortress, Hezbollah continued attacks on northern Israel and reportedly expanded its operations toward Tiberias for the first time, developments that some analysts see as evidence that Israel still lacks a clear military solution in Lebanon.
The Hebrew-language newspaper Maariv reflected this concern, writing: “We captured Beaufort Castle, but we still have no idea where we are going. Israel is being dragged into a war of attrition in Lebanon.”
Recent battlefield developments also suggest that although Hezbollah has generally adhered to the ceasefire, it has responded forcefully whenever it says Israeli attacks have occurred. Supporters of Hezbollah argue that this demonstrates the group still retains operational capability and strategic flexibility.
Silence of the Self-Proclaimed Defenders of Peace
Another issue is the response of countries and organizations that present themselves as defenders of peace and human rights. Critics argue that international organizations have remained largely silent regarding Israeli military actions in Gaza and Lebanon, allowing the situation to continue.
Western countries have also faced criticism. France has raised the issue at the UN Security Council, but observers note that any meaningful action could be blocked by a U.S. veto. Britain, meanwhile, has called for Hezbollah’s disarmament during a period of intense fighting.
The United States has simultaneously promoted diplomatic initiatives while urging Hezbollah to halt its responses to Israeli actions. Critics argue that this approach effectively gives Israel more freedom to continue military operations. Washington has also discussed a new ceasefire proposal, which some observers believe could provide additional time for Israeli military activities.
Questions about U.S. neutrality are further fueled by decades of military assistance to Israel. According to congressional reports, the United States has provided nearly $175 billion in military aid to Israel between 1946 and 2025, making it the largest recipient of U.S. military assistance in the world.
Within this framework, critics argue that some Western media outlets have exaggerated the significance of Israel’s capture of Beaufort Castle while portraying military actions in Lebanon solely as operations against Hezbollah. Opponents of this narrative emphasize that Lebanese territory remains sovereign territory under international law and that any occupation raises serious legal questions.
Lebanon and the Question of Trust in the United States
The escalation of Israeli military actions and repeated ceasefire disputes have once again fueled debate over the reliability of U.S. mediation efforts in the region.
According to critics of U.S. policy, Washington continues to combine pressure and diplomacy while maintaining strong support for Israel. They argue that this strategy seeks to encourage Arab states to normalize relations with Israel while limiting the influence of resistance movements.
Supporters of the resistance axis maintain that only deterrence and strength can effectively counter Israeli and U.S. policies. They argue that continued support for Hezbollah and a firm regional strategy are necessary to confront what they describe as ongoing aggression.
Today, Lebanon faces a major test for the international community. Critics warn that continued selective approaches to international law could repeat the failures seen in Gaza. Meanwhile, the resistance movement insists that continued resistance to foreign aggression will eventually contribute to a new regional order.
Nournews