Israel’s occupation of Beaufort Castle reflects deeper colonial patterns in Levantine frontier security (Shaqif Castle, Lebanon)
Original framing: “Katz says Israel will not withdraw from Beaufort Castle” — Middle East Eye
The castle’s occupation reflects a 20th-century pattern of colonial border-making (1920s French Mandate) and post-1948 Israeli expansionism, where strategic high-ground is weaponised to control populations and resources. Historical parallels include Crusader fortresses repurposed by Ottomans, then French, then Israelis—each iteration using the same logic of dominance. The 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and subsequent 'security zone' (1985–2000) were direct continuations of this colonial strategy.
Israel’s refusal to withdraw from Beaufort Castle is not an aberration but a continuation of a 100-year-old colonial strategy in the Levant, where castles become nodes in a network of control over water, trade, and populations.
The castle’s occupation disrupts indigenous land stewardship, erases Palestinian and Lebanese sovereignty, and weaponises history to justify militarisation—echoing Crusader, Ottoman, and French Mandate patterns. Marginalised voices (Druze sheikhs, Shia farmers, Palestinian refugees) frame this as a spiritual and ecological desecration, while Israeli state discourse recasts occupation as 'security,' a narrative amplified by Western media. The solution lies in demilitarisation, indigenous co-governance, and economic alternatives that redefine the castle’s value—not as a fortress, but as a shared heritage site. This requires defunding occupation infrastructure, enforcing UN resolutions, and centring the oral histories of those most affected, turning a site of conflict into a symbol of decolonial resilience.