Inside the Israel-Lebanon accord that critics say was built to fail

BEIRUT — Lebanon and Israel last week signed a framework agreement aimed at ending hostilities between the long-time enemies. But the deal the US is engineering is based on something that is a non-starter for the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah: Disarmament.

The 14-point tripartite agreement, hailed by U.S. officials as a landmark step toward a permanent peace agreement, requires Israel to withdraw from areas occupied by its forces in Lebanon, but only after Hezbollah is fully disarmed and the Lebanese army establishes control over the country’s south, Hezbollah’s central area and the primary staging area for attacks on Israel.

Hezbollah was not included in the negotiations regarding the agreement. Hezbollah leader Naim al-Qasim called the deal “a humiliation, a disgrace and a waste of sovereignty” in a statement on Saturday.

“Linking Israel’s withdrawal to disarmament [Hezbollah] Al-Qasim added that the agreement legitimized the presence of Israeli troops in Lebanon, possibly for years, and could result in annexation, and vowed to continue fighting until Israel withdrew.

“We did not leave the battlefield under the most difficult conditions, and we will not leave it now,” he said.

Israel and Hezbollah have been fighting consecutive wars for more than four decades. The latest conflict began on March 2, when Hezbollah, whose main patron is Tehran, attacked northern Israel with drones and missiles, just days after the start of the US-Israeli war against Iran. Israel retaliated by deepening its invasion of Lebanese territory and bombing targets across the country that it said were affiliated with Hezbollah.

Since then, Lebanese health authorities say more than 4,250 people have died; This number surpasses war deaths in Iran, whose population is 16 times smaller. Israeli troops occupy about 800 square miles, a fifth of Lebanon’s territory, and have razed dozens of villages and towns in southern Lebanon as part of establishing a self-declared security zone that will permanently displace hundreds of thousands of people.

Under the terms of the agreement, which also includes an unpublished Security Annex, there is no timeline for an Israeli withdrawal, while any withdrawal is contingent on the Lebanese army following a “rigorous, performance-based program” to disarm Hezbollah and “exert effective authority throughout Lebanon.” This would also include the creation of a “military coordination group” to ensure implementation of the framework.

The broader ceasefire signed between the United States and Iran this month includes provisions requiring both countries and their allies to halt military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. It also includes commitments to preserve the country’s territorial integrity, with Iran saying Israel should completely withdraw from Lebanon.

But the Lebanese government, wary of Tehran’s influence in the country and trying to neutralize Hezbollah after its previous war with Israel in 2024, insisted on separating itself from the US-Iran deal and continuing separate negotiations. Several ceasefires signed with Israel in the last few months, none of which included Hezbollah, were broken almost as soon as they were announced.

However, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun struck a hopeful note about the new framework, rebuking Hezbollah, saying it would allow displaced Lebanese to return to their areas “under the sovereignty of a Lebanese state that has no partner in its sovereignty over its land and people.”

Israel also welcomed the agreement, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hailing it as a “historic achievement for Israel” that allows its military to remain in the so-called security zone with US support. He added that the agreement gives Israel freedom of action to neutralize what it sees as immediate or even emerging threats.

The framework includes provisions for a trial run of sorts, with Israeli troops withdrawing from two pilot areas where the Lebanese army will gradually assume security responsibilities.

Maps published by the Israeli government show pilot areas covering the villages of Froun, Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh and Ghandouriyeh, but commentators question their value, noting that Israel does not have a significant presence in these villages.

On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said at a press conference that “people should not hold their breath wondering where the next place in Lebanon Israel will retreat to” and that Israel “will not retreat even one millimeter” until Hezbollah is disarmed. He added that in their meeting with US military officials, they agreed that Israel would remain in three security zones in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.

He said the Israeli army would remain in Lebanon “in the long run” as he did not expect Lebanese soldiers to “suddenly turn into lions attacking Hezbollah”.

This skepticism has been echoed by Lebanese politicians, who have long warned that Hezbollah, a better-equipped and more capable fighting force than the Lebanese army, cannot be disarmed by force and that doing so risks leading to a civil war.

Lebanese parliament speaker and Hezbollah ally Nabih Berri rejected the framework as a collection of “dictators” rather than an agreement, saying the agreement “cannot be implemented” in comments to Lebanese media. He added that the most dangerous aspect of the deal was its potential to “provoke internal divisions”.

But critics say that may be the real issue for Israel.

“The Israelis tried to do this knowing it wouldn’t work,” said Michael Young, senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.

“This gives them two options: If the Lebanese army tries to disarm Hezbollah by force, it will provoke a civil conflict, which is good for Israel and justifies its presence in southern Lebanon. If the Lebanese army is successful, which is unlikely, it will be fine for Israel, too.”

There was little sign of a ceasefire on the ground Monday. The Israeli army said it hit areas near Nabatiyeh overnight, and there were reports of systematic destruction of buildings as well as attacks on some areas in southern Lebanon throughout the day. The sound of an Israeli drone could be heard from all over Beirut.

Many Lebanese who are angry about the deal point out that the ceasefire is very similar to the one brokered over Gaza. The purpose of this ceasefire is to ensure the disarmament of Hamas militants and the Israeli withdrawal, initially followed by the cessation of hostilities and the influx of unrestricted aid, followed by the deployment of the International Stabilization Force and an interim governing authority.

But none of this happened, and Hamas rejected a new disarmament proposal in March that would have forced it to give up its tunnel network, rockets, heavy ammunition, explosives and assault rifles before Israel’s withdrawal.

Israel’s attacks in the region continue. This month, health officials reported that more than 1,000 people had died in Israeli attacks since the ceasefire was signed.

Commentators say Hamas has put forward the peace process in Northern Ireland as a possible model. In the process, the Irish Republican Army and its allies were disarmed, seven years after the Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998.