Illustration: “Even the stones of Beaufort seem to weep. For centuries they have witnessed war, conquest, and bloodshed. They are still waiting to witness peace.”
If Israel truly wants peace with Lebanon, it must recognize that Lebanon is not Hezbollah—and peace cannot be built on occupation.
By: The Editorial Board, Opinion
As Lebanese and Israeli officials meet in Washington to explore a possible framework for future state-to-state relations, events on the ground in southern Lebanon are moving in the opposite direction.
The capture of Beaufort Ridge and the crossing of the Litani River mark a significant escalation in Israel’s military campaign. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the seizure as a “dramatic change” in Israeli policy and vowed to deepen Israel’s hold over areas previously controlled by Hezbollah.
Yet the timing could not be more contradictory.
While diplomats discuss the possibility of a new chapter between Lebanon and Israel—one that could eventually lead to normalization and broader regional integration—military actions are creating new facts on the ground that risk making peace even more difficult to achieve.
The fundamental question is not whether Israel can occupy more territory. Militarily, it can.
The real question is whether occupation can deliver the long-term security that Israelis seek.
History suggests otherwise.
Israel occupied southern Lebanon for nearly two decades. That occupation did not bring lasting security. Instead, it fueled resentment, strengthened Hezbollah’s narrative, and helped transform the group into a powerful military and political force. Security did not come from controlling more Lebanese land. It came from deterrence, diplomacy, and political arrangements that reduced the incentives for conflict.
Israel must also recognize a reality that many outside observers often overlook: Lebanon is not Hezbollah, and Hezbollah is not Lebanon.
Millions of Lebanese have paid a devastating price for Hezbollah’s wars and for Iran’s regional ambitions. Lebanon’s economy has collapsed, its infrastructure has been damaged, and entire communities have been displaced. Many Lebanese want a normal country governed by a strong state, a strong national army, and institutions capable of protecting the country’s sovereignty and independence.
If Israel truly desires peace with Lebanon, it cannot continue to treat all of southern Lebanon as Hezbollah territory.
Nor can it expect any Lebanese government—regardless of its political orientation—to sign a peace agreement while Israeli forces occupy Lebanese land.
No sovereign nation willingly signs a lasting peace agreement while under occupation.
The path forward requires two parallel commitments.
Israel must demonstrate that it has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon by withdrawing to its internationally recognized border and respecting Lebanon’s sovereignty.
In return, a peace agreement would create a historic opportunity for Lebanon to rebuild its institutions, strengthen its armed forces, restore the authority of the state throughout its territory, and attract broad international support. Once Lebanon regains full sovereignty and enjoys the backing of the international community, it will be in a far stronger position to address the issue of all non-state armed groups and ensure that decisions of war and peace belong exclusively to the Lebanese state.
A sovereign Lebanon at peace with its neighbors would be far better equipped to resolve its internal challenges than a Lebanon trapped in a cycle of occupation, confrontation, and perpetual crisis.
The irony is that Washington may be closer than ever to facilitating a historic breakthrough between Lebanon and Israel. There appears to be growing recognition on both sides that endless conflict serves neither nation. The broader success of the Abraham Accords has demonstrated that former adversaries can build productive relationships when they focus on the future rather than remain prisoners of the past.
But every new military advance into Lebanon sends the opposite message. It strengthens hardliners, weakens moderates, and makes it harder for advocates of peace to persuade their own people that coexistence is possible.
Prime Minister Netanyahu now faces a historic choice.
He can pursue a strategy of permanent military control that guarantees endless resistance, recurring conflict, and future wars.
Or he can support a framework that allows Lebanon to reclaim full sovereignty while giving Israel what it has sought for generations: secure, recognized, and peaceful relations with its northern neighbor.
The occupation of Beaufort may represent a military victory.
It will not deliver peace.
Only a sovereign Lebanon, free to govern itself and control its own future, can become a genuine partner for peace.
Israel can occupy more Lebanese territory. It cannot occupy the hearts and minds of the Lebanese people. Lasting security will come not from controlling more land, but from building a peace that future generations on both sides have a stake in preserving.
