The announcement of a framework agreement between Israel and Lebanon following negotiations in the United States has been greeted with cautious optimism in Israel.
Friday’s agreement describes a “series of processes” for the Lebanese army to restore “effective sovereignty over all of Lebanon until the disarmament of non-state armed groups is confirmed,” an apparent reference to Hezbollah, which has been fighting Israel at varying levels of intensity since October 2023.
Recommended stories
list of 4 itemsend of list
Only once that process is complete will Israeli forces be able to “gradually redeploy” from the vast swathes of southern Lebanon they have occupied since early March, when they launched a new offensive that killed more than 4,000 people.
The US government’s framework does not specify what measures will be used to test disarmament, but it does outline two “test zones” for Israel’s initial withdrawal, where the Lebanese army will “gradually assume full and effective security responsibility.”
Yossi Mekelberg, a senior consulting fellow at Chatham House, said “time and implementation will determine” whether this is “a real deal or just something signed” to appease the United States, Israel’s main supporter and signatory of Friday’s deal.
Last week, the U.S. and Iranian governments signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to end the war that the U.S. and Israel began against Iran in late February, with the condition that Israel cease operations in Lebanon and agree to respect “Lebanon’s territorial integrity and sovereignty.”
“Could the Israeli government really withdraw completely from Lebanon and then confront its voters? We don’t know,” Mekelberg said. “Likewise, will the Lebanese government be able to actually deal with Hezbollah? Whose problem is it? That seems unlikely.”
As most expected, Hezbollah rejected this framework outright. In a statement on Saturday, the group’s Secretary-General Naim Qasem called the Washington agreement “invalid” and argued that a memorandum of understanding between Iran and the United States should be the basis for ending the conflict. He also warned against linking Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon to Hezbollah’s disarmament, saying it crossed “all red lines”.
But how have Israeli politicians reacted to this framework, and what are the chances of it being implemented?
What does Israel’s prime minister say?
Immediately after announcing the framework, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a video statement trying to sell the deal to a public that opinion polls show is reluctant to end attacks on Hezbollah.
Prime Minister Netanyahu said the deal would be a major blow to Iran, an ally of Hezbollah and historically Israel’s archenemy, and promised his people, especially those in northern Israel, who have been most vulnerable to Hezbollah fire, that Israel would maintain a “buffer zone” within Lebanese territory until Hezbollah was disarmed.
“Iran is trying to persuade us to withdraw by force from southern Lebanon,” he said.
“And essentially, Israel, Lebanon and the United States are telling Iran that it doesn’t concern you, you have no role in Lebanon, you don’t have Hezbollah,” he added.
How did Israeli rebels react?
It’s mixed.
Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid criticized the framework, saying its terms would allow Iran to continue funding the group while hoping to push it back into Lebanon.
Comments by other politicians echo long-standing criticism of Israel’s policy toward Hezbollah, suggesting it seeks to manage rather than eliminate the threat posed by Hezbollah. “As long as Hezbollah exists and grows stronger every day, the next conflict is only a matter of time, despite the agreement,” former Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Liberman wrote in an article for X.
Other leaders have criticized the extent to which Israel is ceding control of the war against Hezbollah to its U.S. allies. Gadi Eisenkot, a former chief of staff and now seen as Prime Minister Netanyahu’s main challenger, appeared on a Hebrew podcast earlier this week ahead of the signing of the framework and said: “We have failed to leverage our military achievements and woke up to security realities that cannot be tolerated.”
What was the reaction in northern Israel?
Local leaders in northern Israel, the area usually most exposed to Hezbollah attacks, greeted news of the deal with cautious optimism.
David Azoulay of the Metula Regional Council, near the Lebanese border, welcomed the agreement but stressed that any Israeli withdrawal is conditional and must be carefully managed by both the Israeli military and political leadership.
“Without disarmament of Hezbollah, there will be no complete withdrawal,” he said. “There can be no agreement without the disarmament of terrorist organizations.”
Eyal Shmueli, speaker of parliament in Kfar Vladim, a small town about 14 kilometers (9 miles) from the Lebanese border, expressed skepticism. “Experience teaches us that the responsibility imposed on the Lebanese government in the distant past to act to disarm Hezbollah has not been fulfilled,” he said.
Aaron Bregman, a senior professor at the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, described the framework as an attempt by Israel and the United States to “drive a wedge between the Lebanese and Iranian fronts” and curb “Iranian influence in Lebanon.”
He added: “It won’t work, it won’t take a million years.”
For now, Bregman said, neither Hezbollah, which still sees itself as Lebanon’s defender in the face of an aggressive Israel, nor its ally Iran, which had gained confidence by bringing the United States to the negotiating table, are interested in giving up their arms or being dismantled.
“This agreement is likely to join the pile of failed Israel-Lebanon agreements in 1701,” he added, referring to the United Nations resolution adopted in 2006 to end the previous war between Israel and Hezbollah.
