Israel-Lebanon framework faces first test as Hezbollah rejects disarmament deal - analysis

Lead

Israel and Lebanon signed a US-brokered framework agreement in Washington on June 26, turning months of cautious negotiations into a formal diplomatic process. But the deal’s hardest test is only beginning: whether Lebanon can impose state authority in the south while Hezbollah remains armed, powerful, and opposed to the arrangement.

The agreement, signed at the State Department by Israeli Ambassador to the US Yechiel Leiter, Lebanese Ambassador to the US Nada Hamadeh Moawad, and US State Department Counselor Daniel Holler, sets out a performance-based path toward ending the conflict, restoring Lebanese sovereignty, and moving toward peaceful neighborly relations between the two countries.

Coverage Comparison

Reporting on the agreement varies in emphasis. Al Jazeera’s coverage centers on Hezbollah’s rejection of the deal and its potential consequences, while the Jerusalem Post, in two separate analyses, focuses on the agreement’s implementation challenges and its historical context. The Jerusalem Post pieces—one by Stephen M. Flatow and another by Giorgia Valente/The Media Line—offer a cautiously optimistic but skeptical view, drawing parallels to past failures.

Key Claims

Under the framework, the Lebanese Armed Forces are to assume full security responsibility in two initial “pilot zones” in southern Lebanon. Israeli forces are to redeploy from those areas once the disarmament of nonstate armed groups and the dismantling of their military infrastructure are verified. Future pilot zones are to be agreed upon by Israel and Lebanon, with US support and verification.

The agreement also calls for a US-supported military coordination group to oversee implementation and a security annex to define the measures, verification mechanisms, and arrangements needed to move the process forward. Washington also pledged support for the Lebanese army and humanitarian assistance for Lebanon.

On paper, the agreement is a breakthrough. Israel and Lebanon recognize each other’s right to live in peace as neighboring sovereign states and say they intend to end the conflict and, eventually, any state of war between them. In practice, the bargain remains the one that shaped the talks from the start: Lebanon wants Israeli forces out and sovereignty restored; Israel wants proof that Hezbollah will be disarmed and kept away from the border.

Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem has rejected the framework agreement, calling it “humiliating, shameful and a surrender of sovereignty” for Beirut. In a statement released on Saturday, he rejected linking Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon to Hezbollah’s disarmament, which is a key part of the US-mediated agreement. “We will continue as a resistance in the field to defeat the occupation [Israel] … We did not leave the field under difficult circumstances and we will not abandon it,” Qassem said.

The Hezbollah leader also accused Lebanon’s government of legitimising Israel’s occupation “for many years to come” by signing the agreement, saying that it “could lead to the annexation of these lands to the Zionist entity.”

Al Jazeera’s reporting notes that the agreement does not force Israel to withdraw from southern Lebanon. As Al Jazeera’s Lebanon correspondent Zeina Khodr noted: “The word withdrawal is not in [the] text.” Instead, Khodr said the text is a “path towards normalisation [between Israel and Lebanon] – the two states both recognise each other’s right to exist in ‘peace’, declare intention to formally end state of war, pursue direct negoti…”

Hezbollah supporters protested the agreement in Beirut, reflecting the deep opposition to the deal among the group’s base. Lebanese officials, however, praised the agreement, saying Lebanon was finally acting like a state.

A survey cited by the Jerusalem Post found that a majority of Lebanese supported reaching a peace agreement with Israel, suggesting a potential divide between public opinion and Hezbollah’s stance.

Perspectives

Hezbollah: Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem rejected the framework agreement as a “surrender of sovereignty,” vowing to continue resistance in the field until the occupation is defeated. He accused the Lebanese government of legitimising Israel’s occupation and warned that the agreement could lead to annexation of Lebanese lands.

Lebanese government (as reported by Al Jazeera): Lebanese officials praised the agreement, saying Lebanon was finally acting like a state, indicating support for the deal as a step toward restoring sovereignty and ending the conflict.

Israeli officials (as reported by Al Jazeera): Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, and other officials have suggested that Israel might remain in Lebanon regardless of Hezbollah’s disarmament, with Smotrich stating, “We are there until Hezbollah disarms and I think also beyond that, because we need defendable borders.”