BEIRUT — Lebanon and Israel last week forged a framework agreement aimed at ending hostilities between the long-time enemies. But the U.S.-engineered deal hinges on what has been a non-starter for the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah: Disarmament.
The 14-point trilateral agreement, hailed by U.S. officials as a landmark step toward a durable peace treaty, stipulates Israel withdraw from areas its forces occupy in Lebanon, but only after Hezbollah completely disarms and the Lebanese army establishes control of the country’s south, Hezbollah’s heartland region and its primary staging ground for attacks on Israel.
Hezbollah was not included in the negotiations over the pact. Hezbollah head Naim Al-Qassem slammed the deal in a statement on Saturday as a “humiliation, a disgrace and a squandering of sovereignty.”
“Linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of [Hezbollah] across Lebanon is a highly dangerous proposal that crosses all red lines,” Al-Qassem said, adding that the deal legitimizes the presence of Israeli troops in Lebanon, possibly for years, and could lead to annexation. He vowed to continue fighting until Israel withdraws.
“We did not abandon the battlefield during the most difficult of circumstances, and we will not abandon it now,” he said.
Israel and Hezbollah have fought in successive wars for more than four decades. The most recent conflict began on March 2, when Hezbollah, whose main patron is Tehran, attacked northern Israel with a fusillade of drones and missiles a few days after the beginning of U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Israel retaliated by deepening its invasion into Lebanese territory and bombing what it said were Hezbollah-affiliated targets across the country.
Since then, Lebanese health authorities say more than 4,250 people have been killed — a toll that surpasses the war deaths in Iran but in a country 16 times less populous. Israeli troops occupy almost 800 square miles, a fifth of Lebanon’s territory, and have razed dozens of villages and towns in south Lebanon as part of establishing a self-declared security zone that would permanently displace hundreds of thousands.
Under the terms of the deal, which includes an unpublished Security Annex, there is no timetable for Israeli withdrawal, while any pullout is contingent on the Lebanese army following a “rigorous, performance-based program” to disarm Hezbollah and “exercise effective authority across Lebanon.” It would also involve the creation of a “military coordination group” to ensure the framework’s implementation.
A wider truce between the U.S. and Iran signed this month includes stipulations for both countries and their allies to stop military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. It also includes pledges to maintain the country’s territorial integrity, with Iran saying Israel should fully withdraw from Lebanon.
But the Lebanese government, which is wary of Tehran’s influence in the country and which sought to neutralize Hezbollah after the group’s previous war with Israel in 2024, insisted on de-linking itself from the U.S.-Iran accord and going ahead with separate negotiations. A number of ceasefires it signed with Israel over the last few months — none of which involved Hezbollah — were broken almost as soon as they were announced.
Nevertheless, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun struck a hopeful note over the new framework, saying it would allow displaced Lebanese to return to their areas “under sovereignty of a Lebanese state that has no partner in its sovereignty over its land and its people,” in a rebuke of Hezbollah.
Israel, too, 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 U.S. backing. He added the agreement allows Israel freedom of action to neutralize what it deems as immediate or even emerging threats.
The framework has provisions for a test run of sorts, with Israeli troops withdrawing from two pilot zones where the Lebanese army will gradually assume security responsibilities.
Maps published by the Israeli government show the pilot zones encompassing the villages of Froun, Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh and Ghandouriyeh, but commentators question their value, noting Israel does not have a significant presence in those villages.
On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said during a news conference that “people should not hold their breath wondering where the next place will be from which Israel will withdraw in Lebanon,” and that Israel would not “withdraw a millimeter” until Hezbollah is disarmed. He added that in a meeting with U.S. military officials, they agreed Israel would remain in three security zones, in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.
He said the Israeli military will remain in Lebanon “long-term,” since he did not expect Lebanese soldiers to “suddenly become lions charging at Hezbollah.”
That skepticism was 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 sparking a civil war.
Dismissing the framework as more a collection of “diktats” than an agreement, Lebanese parliamentary speaker — and Hezbollah ally — Nabih Berri said in comments to Lebanese media that the deal “cannot be implemented.” He added the most dangerous aspect of the agreement was its potential “to incite internal divisions.”
But critics say that for Israel, that may be the point.
“The Israelis pushed for this knowing it wouldn’t work,” said Michael Young, senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
“It gives them two options: If the Lebanese army tries to disarm Hezbollah by force it will provoke a domestic conflict, which is fine for Israel and justifies its presence in south Lebanon. If the Lebanese army succeeds, which is unlikely, it’s also fine for Israel.”
There was little sign of the ceasefire on the ground Monday. The Israeli military said it hit areas near Nabatiyeh overnight, and there were reports of strikes throughout the day on parts of Lebanon’s south, along with systematic demolitions of buildings. The sound of an Israeli drone could be heard across Beirut.
Many Lebanese irate with the deal point out that the truce seems all too similar to the one brokered over Gaza. That truce is meant to bring about Hamas militants’ disarmament and an Israeli withdrawal after an initial cessation of hostilities and the unrestricted entry of aid, followed by the deployment of an International Stabilization Force and a transitional governing authority.
But none of that has happened, and Hamas rejected a new disarmament proposal in March that would force it to give up its tunnel network as well as rockets, heavy munitions, explosive devices and assault rifles before any Israel withdrawal.
Israeli attacks persist in the enclave. This month, health authorities tallied more than 1,000 people killed by Israeli attacks since the ceasefire’s signing.
Commentators say Hamas is pushing for the peace process in Northern Ireland as a possible model. In that process, the Irish Republican Army and its allies disarmed more than seven years after the 1998 signing of the Good Friday Agreement.
BEIRUT — Lebanon and Israel last week forged a framework agreement aimed at ending hostilities between the long-time enemies. But the U.S.-engineered deal hinges on what has been a non-starter for the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah: Disarmament.
The 14-point trilateral agreement, hailed by U.S. officials as a landmark step toward a durable peace treaty, stipulates Israel withdraw from areas its forces occupy in Lebanon, but only after Hezbollah completely disarms and the Lebanese army establishes control of the country’s south, Hezbollah’s heartland region and its primary staging ground for attacks on Israel.
Hezbollah was not included in the negotiations over the pact. Hezbollah head Naim Al-Qassem slammed the deal in a statement on Saturday as a “humiliation, a disgrace and a squandering of sovereignty.”
“Linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of [Hezbollah] across Lebanon is a highly dangerous proposal that crosses all red lines,” Al-Qassem said, adding that the deal legitimizes the presence of Israeli troops in Lebanon, possibly for years, and could lead to annexation. He vowed to continue fighting until Israel withdraws.
“We did not abandon the battlefield during the most difficult of circumstances, and we will not abandon it now,” he said.
Israel and Hezbollah have fought in successive wars for more than four decades. The most recent conflict began on March 2, when Hezbollah, whose main patron is Tehran, attacked northern Israel with a fusillade of drones and missiles a few days after the beginning of U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Israel retaliated by deepening its invasion into Lebanese territory and bombing what it said were Hezbollah-affiliated targets across the country.
Since then, Lebanese health authorities say more than 4,250 people have been killed — a toll that surpasses the war deaths in Iran but in a country 16 times less populous. Israeli troops occupy almost 800 square miles, a fifth of Lebanon’s territory, and have razed dozens of villages and towns in south Lebanon as part of establishing a self-declared security zone that would permanently displace hundreds of thousands.
Under the terms of the deal, which includes an unpublished Security Annex, there is no timetable for Israeli withdrawal, while any pullout is contingent on the Lebanese army following a “rigorous, performance-based program” to disarm Hezbollah and “exercise effective authority across Lebanon.” It would also involve the creation of a “military coordination group” to ensure the framework’s implementation.
A wider truce between the U.S. and Iran signed this month includes stipulations for both countries and their allies to stop military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. It also includes pledges to maintain the country’s territorial integrity, with Iran saying Israel should fully withdraw from Lebanon.
But the Lebanese government, which is wary of Tehran’s influence in the country and which sought to neutralize Hezbollah after the group’s previous war with Israel in 2024, insisted on de-linking itself from the U.S.-Iran accord and going ahead with separate negotiations. A number of ceasefires it signed with Israel over the last few months — none of which involved Hezbollah — were broken almost as soon as they were announced.
Nevertheless, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun struck a hopeful note over the new framework, saying it would allow displaced Lebanese to return to their areas “under sovereignty of a Lebanese state that has no partner in its sovereignty over its land and its people,” in a rebuke of Hezbollah.
Israel, too, 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 U.S. backing. He added the agreement allows Israel freedom of action to neutralize what it deems as immediate or even emerging threats.
The framework has provisions for a test run of sorts, with Israeli troops withdrawing from two pilot zones where the Lebanese army will gradually assume security responsibilities.
Maps published by the Israeli government show the pilot zones encompassing the villages of Froun, Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh and Ghandouriyeh, but commentators question their value, noting Israel does not have a significant presence in those villages.
On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said during a news conference that “people should not hold their breath wondering where the next place will be from which Israel will withdraw in Lebanon,” and that Israel would not “withdraw a millimeter” until Hezbollah is disarmed. He added that in a meeting with U.S. military officials, they agreed Israel would remain in three security zones, in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.
He said the Israeli military will remain in Lebanon “long-term,” since he did not expect Lebanese soldiers to “suddenly become lions charging at Hezbollah.”
That skepticism was 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 sparking a civil war.
Dismissing the framework as more a collection of “diktats” than an agreement, Lebanese parliamentary speaker — and Hezbollah ally — Nabih Berri said in comments to Lebanese media that the deal “cannot be implemented.” He added the most dangerous aspect of the agreement was its potential “to incite internal divisions.”
But critics say that for Israel, that may be the point.
“The Israelis pushed for this knowing it wouldn’t work,” said Michael Young, senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
“It gives them two options: If the Lebanese army tries to disarm Hezbollah by force it will provoke a domestic conflict, which is fine for Israel and justifies its presence in south Lebanon. If the Lebanese army succeeds, which is unlikely, it’s also fine for Israel.”
There was little sign of the ceasefire on the ground Monday. The Israeli military said it hit areas near Nabatiyeh overnight, and there were reports of strikes throughout the day on parts of Lebanon’s south, along with systematic demolitions of buildings. The sound of an Israeli drone could be heard across Beirut.
Many Lebanese irate with the deal point out that the truce seems all too similar to the one brokered over Gaza. That truce is meant to bring about Hamas militants’ disarmament and an Israeli withdrawal after an initial cessation of hostilities and the unrestricted entry of aid, followed by the deployment of an International Stabilization Force and a transitional governing authority.
But none of that has happened, and Hamas rejected a new disarmament proposal in March that would force it to give up its tunnel network as well as rockets, heavy munitions, explosive devices and assault rifles before any Israel withdrawal.
Israeli attacks persist in the enclave. This month, health authorities tallied more than 1,000 people killed by Israeli attacks since the ceasefire’s signing.
Commentators say Hamas is pushing for the peace process in Northern Ireland as a possible model. In that process, the Irish Republican Army and its allies disarmed more than seven years after the 1998 signing of the Good Friday Agreement.
BEIRUT — Lebanon and Israel last week forged a framework agreement aimed at ending hostilities between the long-time enemies. But the U.S.-engineered deal hinges on what has been a non-starter for the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah: Disarmament.
The 14-point trilateral agreement, hailed by U.S. officials as a landmark step toward a durable peace treaty, stipulates Israel withdraw from areas its forces occupy in Lebanon, but only after Hezbollah completely disarms and the Lebanese army establishes control of the country’s south, Hezbollah’s heartland region and its primary staging ground for attacks on Israel.
Hezbollah was not included in the negotiations over the pact. Hezbollah head Naim Al-Qassem slammed the deal in a statement on Saturday as a “humiliation, a disgrace and a squandering of sovereignty.”
“Linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of [Hezbollah] across Lebanon is a highly dangerous proposal that crosses all red lines,” Al-Qassem said, adding that the deal legitimizes the presence of Israeli troops in Lebanon, possibly for years, and could lead to annexation. He vowed to continue fighting until Israel withdraws.
“We did not abandon the battlefield during the most difficult of circumstances, and we will not abandon it now,” he said.
Israel and Hezbollah have fought in successive wars for more than four decades. The most recent conflict began on March 2, when Hezbollah, whose main patron is Tehran, attacked northern Israel with a fusillade of drones and missiles a few days after the beginning of U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Israel retaliated by deepening its invasion into Lebanese territory and bombing what it said were Hezbollah-affiliated targets across the country.
Since then, Lebanese health authorities say more than 4,250 people have been killed — a toll that surpasses the war deaths in Iran but in a country 16 times less populous. Israeli troops occupy almost 800 square miles, a fifth of Lebanon’s territory, and have razed dozens of villages and towns in south Lebanon as part of establishing a self-declared security zone that would permanently displace hundreds of thousands.
Under the terms of the deal, which includes an unpublished Security Annex, there is no timetable for Israeli withdrawal, while any pullout is contingent on the Lebanese army following a “rigorous, performance-based program” to disarm Hezbollah and “exercise effective authority across Lebanon.” It would also involve the creation of a “military coordination group” to ensure the framework’s implementation.
A wider truce between the U.S. and Iran signed this month includes stipulations for both countries and their allies to stop military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. It also includes pledges to maintain the country’s territorial integrity, with Iran saying Israel should fully withdraw from Lebanon.
But the Lebanese government, which is wary of Tehran’s influence in the country and which sought to neutralize Hezbollah after the group’s previous war with Israel in 2024, insisted on de-linking itself from the U.S.-Iran accord and going ahead with separate negotiations. A number of ceasefires it signed with Israel over the last few months — none of which involved Hezbollah — were broken almost as soon as they were announced.
Nevertheless, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun struck a hopeful note over the new framework, saying it would allow displaced Lebanese to return to their areas “under sovereignty of a Lebanese state that has no partner in its sovereignty over its land and its people,” in a rebuke of Hezbollah.
Israel, too, 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 U.S. backing. He added the agreement allows Israel freedom of action to neutralize what it deems as immediate or even emerging threats.
The framework has provisions for a test run of sorts, with Israeli troops withdrawing from two pilot zones where the Lebanese army will gradually assume security responsibilities.
Maps published by the Israeli government show the pilot zones encompassing the villages of Froun, Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh and Ghandouriyeh, but commentators question their value, noting Israel does not have a significant presence in those villages.
On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said during a news conference that “people should not hold their breath wondering where the next place will be from which Israel will withdraw in Lebanon,” and that Israel would not “withdraw a millimeter” until Hezbollah is disarmed. He added that in a meeting with U.S. military officials, they agreed Israel would remain in three security zones, in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.
He said the Israeli military will remain in Lebanon “long-term,” since he did not expect Lebanese soldiers to “suddenly become lions charging at Hezbollah.”
That skepticism was 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 sparking a civil war.
Dismissing the framework as more a collection of “diktats” than an agreement, Lebanese parliamentary speaker — and Hezbollah ally — Nabih Berri said in comments to Lebanese media that the deal “cannot be implemented.” He added the most dangerous aspect of the agreement was its potential “to incite internal divisions.”
But critics say that for Israel, that may be the point.
“The Israelis pushed for this knowing it wouldn’t work,” said Michael Young, senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
“It gives them two options: If the Lebanese army tries to disarm Hezbollah by force it will provoke a domestic conflict, which is fine for Israel and justifies its presence in south Lebanon. If the Lebanese army succeeds, which is unlikely, it’s also fine for Israel.”
There was little sign of the ceasefire on the ground Monday. The Israeli military said it hit areas near Nabatiyeh overnight, and there were reports of strikes throughout the day on parts of Lebanon’s south, along with systematic demolitions of buildings. The sound of an Israeli drone could be heard across Beirut.
Many Lebanese irate with the deal point out that the truce seems all too similar to the one brokered over Gaza. That truce is meant to bring about Hamas militants’ disarmament and an Israeli withdrawal after an initial cessation of hostilities and the unrestricted entry of aid, followed by the deployment of an International Stabilization Force and a transitional governing authority.
But none of that has happened, and Hamas rejected a new disarmament proposal in March that would force it to give up its tunnel network as well as rockets, heavy munitions, explosive devices and assault rifles before any Israel withdrawal.
Israeli attacks persist in the enclave. This month, health authorities tallied more than 1,000 people killed by Israeli attacks since the ceasefire’s signing.
Commentators say Hamas is pushing for the peace process in Northern Ireland as a possible model. In that process, the Irish Republican Army and its allies disarmed more than seven years after the 1998 signing of the Good Friday Agreement.
BEIRUT — Lebanon and Israel last week forged a framework agreement aimed at ending hostilities between the long-time enemies. But the U.S.-engineered deal hinges on what has been a non-starter for the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah: Disarmament.
The 14-point trilateral agreement, hailed by U.S. officials as a landmark step toward a durable peace treaty, stipulates Israel withdraw from areas its forces occupy in Lebanon, but only after Hezbollah completely disarms and the Lebanese army establishes control of the country’s south, Hezbollah’s heartland region and its primary staging ground for attacks on Israel.
Hezbollah was not included in the negotiations over the pact. Hezbollah head Naim Al-Qassem slammed the deal in a statement on Saturday as a “humiliation, a disgrace and a squandering of sovereignty.”
“Linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of [Hezbollah] across Lebanon is a highly dangerous proposal that crosses all red lines,” Al-Qassem said, adding that the deal legitimizes the presence of Israeli troops in Lebanon, possibly for years, and could lead to annexation. He vowed to continue fighting until Israel withdraws.
“We did not abandon the battlefield during the most difficult of circumstances, and we will not abandon it now,” he said.
Israel and Hezbollah have fought in successive wars for more than four decades. The most recent conflict began on March 2, when Hezbollah, whose main patron is Tehran, attacked northern Israel with a fusillade of drones and missiles a few days after the beginning of U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Israel retaliated by deepening its invasion into Lebanese territory and bombing what it said were Hezbollah-affiliated targets across the country.
Since then, Lebanese health authorities say more than 4,250 people have been killed — a toll that surpasses the war deaths in Iran but in a country 16 times less populous. Israeli troops occupy almost 800 square miles, a fifth of Lebanon’s territory, and have razed dozens of villages and towns in south Lebanon as part of establishing a self-declared security zone that would permanently displace hundreds of thousands.
Under the terms of the deal, which includes an unpublished Security Annex, there is no timetable for Israeli withdrawal, while any pullout is contingent on the Lebanese army following a “rigorous, performance-based program” to disarm Hezbollah and “exercise effective authority across Lebanon.” It would also involve the creation of a “military coordination group” to ensure the framework’s implementation.
A wider truce between the U.S. and Iran signed this month includes stipulations for both countries and their allies to stop military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. It also includes pledges to maintain the country’s territorial integrity, with Iran saying Israel should fully withdraw from Lebanon.
But the Lebanese government, which is wary of Tehran’s influence in the country and which sought to neutralize Hezbollah after the group’s previous war with Israel in 2024, insisted on de-linking itself from the U.S.-Iran accord and going ahead with separate negotiations. A number of ceasefires it signed with Israel over the last few months — none of which involved Hezbollah — were broken almost as soon as they were announced.
Nevertheless, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun struck a hopeful note over the new framework, saying it would allow displaced Lebanese to return to their areas “under sovereignty of a Lebanese state that has no partner in its sovereignty over its land and its people,” in a rebuke of Hezbollah.
Israel, too, 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 U.S. backing. He added the agreement allows Israel freedom of action to neutralize what it deems as immediate or even emerging threats.
The framework has provisions for a test run of sorts, with Israeli troops withdrawing from two pilot zones where the Lebanese army will gradually assume security responsibilities.
Maps published by the Israeli government show the pilot zones encompassing the villages of Froun, Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh and Ghandouriyeh, but commentators question their value, noting Israel does not have a significant presence in those villages.
On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said during a news conference that “people should not hold their breath wondering where the next place will be from which Israel will withdraw in Lebanon,” and that Israel would not “withdraw a millimeter” until Hezbollah is disarmed. He added that in a meeting with U.S. military officials, they agreed Israel would remain in three security zones, in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.
He said the Israeli military will remain in Lebanon “long-term,” since he did not expect Lebanese soldiers to “suddenly become lions charging at Hezbollah.”
That skepticism was 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 sparking a civil war.
Dismissing the framework as more a collection of “diktats” than an agreement, Lebanese parliamentary speaker — and Hezbollah ally — Nabih Berri said in comments to Lebanese media that the deal “cannot be implemented.” He added the most dangerous aspect of the agreement was its potential “to incite internal divisions.”
But critics say that for Israel, that may be the point.
“The Israelis pushed for this knowing it wouldn’t work,” said Michael Young, senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
“It gives them two options: If the Lebanese army tries to disarm Hezbollah by force it will provoke a domestic conflict, which is fine for Israel and justifies its presence in south Lebanon. If the Lebanese army succeeds, which is unlikely, it’s also fine for Israel.”
There was little sign of the ceasefire on the ground Monday. The Israeli military said it hit areas near Nabatiyeh overnight, and there were reports of strikes throughout the day on parts of Lebanon’s south, along with systematic demolitions of buildings. The sound of an Israeli drone could be heard across Beirut.
Many Lebanese irate with the deal point out that the truce seems all too similar to the one brokered over Gaza. That truce is meant to bring about Hamas militants’ disarmament and an Israeli withdrawal after an initial cessation of hostilities and the unrestricted entry of aid, followed by the deployment of an International Stabilization Force and a transitional governing authority.
But none of that has happened, and Hamas rejected a new disarmament proposal in March that would force it to give up its tunnel network as well as rockets, heavy munitions, explosive devices and assault rifles before any Israel withdrawal.
Israeli attacks persist in the enclave. This month, health authorities tallied more than 1,000 people killed by Israeli attacks since the ceasefire’s signing.
Commentators say Hamas is pushing for the peace process in Northern Ireland as a possible model. In that process, the Irish Republican Army and its allies disarmed more than seven years after the 1998 signing of the Good Friday Agreement.
BEIRUT — Lebanon and Israel last week forged a framework agreement aimed at ending hostilities between the long-time enemies. But the U.S.-engineered deal hinges on what has been a non-starter for the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah: Disarmament.
The 14-point trilateral agreement, hailed by U.S. officials as a landmark step toward a durable peace treaty, stipulates Israel withdraw from areas its forces occupy in Lebanon, but only after Hezbollah completely disarms and the Lebanese army establishes control of the country’s south, Hezbollah’s heartland region and its primary staging ground for attacks on Israel.
Hezbollah was not included in the negotiations over the pact. Hezbollah head Naim Al-Qassem slammed the deal in a statement on Saturday as a “humiliation, a disgrace and a squandering of sovereignty.”
“Linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of [Hezbollah] across Lebanon is a highly dangerous proposal that crosses all red lines,” Al-Qassem said, adding that the deal legitimizes the presence of Israeli troops in Lebanon, possibly for years, and could lead to annexation. He vowed to continue fighting until Israel withdraws.
“We did not abandon the battlefield during the most difficult of circumstances, and we will not abandon it now,” he said.
Israel and Hezbollah have fought in successive wars for more than four decades. The most recent conflict began on March 2, when Hezbollah, whose main patron is Tehran, attacked northern Israel with a fusillade of drones and missiles a few days after the beginning of U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Israel retaliated by deepening its invasion into Lebanese territory and bombing what it said were Hezbollah-affiliated targets across the country.
Since then, Lebanese health authorities say more than 4,250 people have been killed — a toll that surpasses the war deaths in Iran but in a country 16 times less populous. Israeli troops occupy almost 800 square miles, a fifth of Lebanon’s territory, and have razed dozens of villages and towns in south Lebanon as part of establishing a self-declared security zone that would permanently displace hundreds of thousands.
Under the terms of the deal, which includes an unpublished Security Annex, there is no timetable for Israeli withdrawal, while any pullout is contingent on the Lebanese army following a “rigorous, performance-based program” to disarm Hezbollah and “exercise effective authority across Lebanon.” It would also involve the creation of a “military coordination group” to ensure the framework’s implementation.
A wider truce between the U.S. and Iran signed this month includes stipulations for both countries and their allies to stop military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. It also includes pledges to maintain the country’s territorial integrity, with Iran saying Israel should fully withdraw from Lebanon.
But the Lebanese government, which is wary of Tehran’s influence in the country and which sought to neutralize Hezbollah after the group’s previous war with Israel in 2024, insisted on de-linking itself from the U.S.-Iran accord and going ahead with separate negotiations. A number of ceasefires it signed with Israel over the last few months — none of which involved Hezbollah — were broken almost as soon as they were announced.
Nevertheless, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun struck a hopeful note over the new framework, saying it would allow displaced Lebanese to return to their areas “under sovereignty of a Lebanese state that has no partner in its sovereignty over its land and its people,” in a rebuke of Hezbollah.
Israel, too, 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 U.S. backing. He added the agreement allows Israel freedom of action to neutralize what it deems as immediate or even emerging threats.
The framework has provisions for a test run of sorts, with Israeli troops withdrawing from two pilot zones where the Lebanese army will gradually assume security responsibilities.
Maps published by the Israeli government show the pilot zones encompassing the villages of Froun, Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh and Ghandouriyeh, but commentators question their value, noting Israel does not have a significant presence in those villages.
On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said during a news conference that “people should not hold their breath wondering where the next place will be from which Israel will withdraw in Lebanon,” and that Israel would not “withdraw a millimeter” until Hezbollah is disarmed. He added that in a meeting with U.S. military officials, they agreed Israel would remain in three security zones, in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.
He said the Israeli military will remain in Lebanon “long-term,” since he did not expect Lebanese soldiers to “suddenly become lions charging at Hezbollah.”
That skepticism was 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 sparking a civil war.
Dismissing the framework as more a collection of “diktats” than an agreement, Lebanese parliamentary speaker — and Hezbollah ally — Nabih Berri said in comments to Lebanese media that the deal “cannot be implemented.” He added the most dangerous aspect of the agreement was its potential “to incite internal divisions.”
But critics say that for Israel, that may be the point.
“The Israelis pushed for this knowing it wouldn’t work,” said Michael Young, senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
“It gives them two options: If the Lebanese army tries to disarm Hezbollah by force it will provoke a domestic conflict, which is fine for Israel and justifies its presence in south Lebanon. If the Lebanese army succeeds, which is unlikely, it’s also fine for Israel.”
There was little sign of the ceasefire on the ground Monday. The Israeli military said it hit areas near Nabatiyeh overnight, and there were reports of strikes throughout the day on parts of Lebanon’s south, along with systematic demolitions of buildings. The sound of an Israeli drone could be heard across Beirut.
Many Lebanese irate with the deal point out that the truce seems all too similar to the one brokered over Gaza. That truce is meant to bring about Hamas militants’ disarmament and an Israeli withdrawal after an initial cessation of hostilities and the unrestricted entry of aid, followed by the deployment of an International Stabilization Force and a transitional governing authority.
But none of that has happened, and Hamas rejected a new disarmament proposal in March that would force it to give up its tunnel network as well as rockets, heavy munitions, explosive devices and assault rifles before any Israel withdrawal.
Israeli attacks persist in the enclave. This month, health authorities tallied more than 1,000 people killed by Israeli attacks since the ceasefire’s signing.
Commentators say Hamas is pushing for the peace process in Northern Ireland as a possible model. In that process, the Irish Republican Army and its allies disarmed more than seven years after the 1998 signing of the Good Friday Agreement.
BEIRUT — Lebanon and Israel last week forged a framework agreement aimed at ending hostilities between the long-time enemies. But the U.S.-engineered deal hinges on what has been a non-starter for the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah: Disarmament.
The 14-point trilateral agreement, hailed by U.S. officials as a landmark step toward a durable peace treaty, stipulates Israel withdraw from areas its forces occupy in Lebanon, but only after Hezbollah completely disarms and the Lebanese army establishes control of the country’s south, Hezbollah’s heartland region and its primary staging ground for attacks on Israel.
Hezbollah was not included in the negotiations over the pact. Hezbollah head Naim Al-Qassem slammed the deal in a statement on Saturday as a “humiliation, a disgrace and a squandering of sovereignty.”
“Linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of [Hezbollah] across Lebanon is a highly dangerous proposal that crosses all red lines,” Al-Qassem said, adding that the deal legitimizes the presence of Israeli troops in Lebanon, possibly for years, and could lead to annexation. He vowed to continue fighting until Israel withdraws.
“We did not abandon the battlefield during the most difficult of circumstances, and we will not abandon it now,” he said.
Israel and Hezbollah have fought in successive wars for more than four decades. The most recent conflict began on March 2, when Hezbollah, whose main patron is Tehran, attacked northern Israel with a fusillade of drones and missiles a few days after the beginning of U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Israel retaliated by deepening its invasion into Lebanese territory and bombing what it said were Hezbollah-affiliated targets across the country.
Since then, Lebanese health authorities say more than 4,250 people have been killed — a toll that surpasses the war deaths in Iran but in a country 16 times less populous. Israeli troops occupy almost 800 square miles, a fifth of Lebanon’s territory, and have razed dozens of villages and towns in south Lebanon as part of establishing a self-declared security zone that would permanently displace hundreds of thousands.
Under the terms of the deal, which includes an unpublished Security Annex, there is no timetable for Israeli withdrawal, while any pullout is contingent on the Lebanese army following a “rigorous, performance-based program” to disarm Hezbollah and “exercise effective authority across Lebanon.” It would also involve the creation of a “military coordination group” to ensure the framework’s implementation.
A wider truce between the U.S. and Iran signed this month includes stipulations for both countries and their allies to stop military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. It also includes pledges to maintain the country’s territorial integrity, with Iran saying Israel should fully withdraw from Lebanon.
But the Lebanese government, which is wary of Tehran’s influence in the country and which sought to neutralize Hezbollah after the group’s previous war with Israel in 2024, insisted on de-linking itself from the U.S.-Iran accord and going ahead with separate negotiations. A number of ceasefires it signed with Israel over the last few months — none of which involved Hezbollah — were broken almost as soon as they were announced.
Nevertheless, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun struck a hopeful note over the new framework, saying it would allow displaced Lebanese to return to their areas “under sovereignty of a Lebanese state that has no partner in its sovereignty over its land and its people,” in a rebuke of Hezbollah.
Israel, too, 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 U.S. backing. He added the agreement allows Israel freedom of action to neutralize what it deems as immediate or even emerging threats.
The framework has provisions for a test run of sorts, with Israeli troops withdrawing from two pilot zones where the Lebanese army will gradually assume security responsibilities.
Maps published by the Israeli government show the pilot zones encompassing the villages of Froun, Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh and Ghandouriyeh, but commentators question their value, noting Israel does not have a significant presence in those villages.
On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said during a news conference that “people should not hold their breath wondering where the next place will be from which Israel will withdraw in Lebanon,” and that Israel would not “withdraw a millimeter” until Hezbollah is disarmed. He added that in a meeting with U.S. military officials, they agreed Israel would remain in three security zones, in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.
He said the Israeli military will remain in Lebanon “long-term,” since he did not expect Lebanese soldiers to “suddenly become lions charging at Hezbollah.”
That skepticism was 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 sparking a civil war.
Dismissing the framework as more a collection of “diktats” than an agreement, Lebanese parliamentary speaker — and Hezbollah ally — Nabih Berri said in comments to Lebanese media that the deal “cannot be implemented.” He added the most dangerous aspect of the agreement was its potential “to incite internal divisions.”
But critics say that for Israel, that may be the point.
“The Israelis pushed for this knowing it wouldn’t work,” said Michael Young, senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
“It gives them two options: If the Lebanese army tries to disarm Hezbollah by force it will provoke a domestic conflict, which is fine for Israel and justifies its presence in south Lebanon. If the Lebanese army succeeds, which is unlikely, it’s also fine for Israel.”
There was little sign of the ceasefire on the ground Monday. The Israeli military said it hit areas near Nabatiyeh overnight, and there were reports of strikes throughout the day on parts of Lebanon’s south, along with systematic demolitions of buildings. The sound of an Israeli drone could be heard across Beirut.
Many Lebanese irate with the deal point out that the truce seems all too similar to the one brokered over Gaza. That truce is meant to bring about Hamas militants’ disarmament and an Israeli withdrawal after an initial cessation of hostilities and the unrestricted entry of aid, followed by the deployment of an International Stabilization Force and a transitional governing authority.
But none of that has happened, and Hamas rejected a new disarmament proposal in March that would force it to give up its tunnel network as well as rockets, heavy munitions, explosive devices and assault rifles before any Israel withdrawal.
Israeli attacks persist in the enclave. This month, health authorities tallied more than 1,000 people killed by Israeli attacks since the ceasefire’s signing.
Commentators say Hamas is pushing for the peace process in Northern Ireland as a possible model. In that process, the Irish Republican Army and its allies disarmed more than seven years after the 1998 signing of the Good Friday Agreement.
BEIRUT — Lebanon and Israel last week forged a framework agreement aimed at ending hostilities between the long-time enemies. But the U.S.-engineered deal hinges on what has been a non-starter for the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah: Disarmament.
The 14-point trilateral agreement, hailed by U.S. officials as a landmark step toward a durable peace treaty, stipulates Israel withdraw from areas its forces occupy in Lebanon, but only after Hezbollah completely disarms and the Lebanese army establishes control of the country’s south, Hezbollah’s heartland region and its primary staging ground for attacks on Israel.
Hezbollah was not included in the negotiations over the pact. Hezbollah head Naim Al-Qassem slammed the deal in a statement on Saturday as a “humiliation, a disgrace and a squandering of sovereignty.”
“Linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of [Hezbollah] across Lebanon is a highly dangerous proposal that crosses all red lines,” Al-Qassem said, adding that the deal legitimizes the presence of Israeli troops in Lebanon, possibly for years, and could lead to annexation. He vowed to continue fighting until Israel withdraws.
“We did not abandon the battlefield during the most difficult of circumstances, and we will not abandon it now,” he said.
Israel and Hezbollah have fought in successive wars for more than four decades. The most recent conflict began on March 2, when Hezbollah, whose main patron is Tehran, attacked northern Israel with a fusillade of drones and missiles a few days after the beginning of U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Israel retaliated by deepening its invasion into Lebanese territory and bombing what it said were Hezbollah-affiliated targets across the country.
Since then, Lebanese health authorities say more than 4,250 people have been killed — a toll that surpasses the war deaths in Iran but in a country 16 times less populous. Israeli troops occupy almost 800 square miles, a fifth of Lebanon’s territory, and have razed dozens of villages and towns in south Lebanon as part of establishing a self-declared security zone that would permanently displace hundreds of thousands.
Under the terms of the deal, which includes an unpublished Security Annex, there is no timetable for Israeli withdrawal, while any pullout is contingent on the Lebanese army following a “rigorous, performance-based program” to disarm Hezbollah and “exercise effective authority across Lebanon.” It would also involve the creation of a “military coordination group” to ensure the framework’s implementation.
A wider truce between the U.S. and Iran signed this month includes stipulations for both countries and their allies to stop military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. It also includes pledges to maintain the country’s territorial integrity, with Iran saying Israel should fully withdraw from Lebanon.
But the Lebanese government, which is wary of Tehran’s influence in the country and which sought to neutralize Hezbollah after the group’s previous war with Israel in 2024, insisted on de-linking itself from the U.S.-Iran accord and going ahead with separate negotiations. A number of ceasefires it signed with Israel over the last few months — none of which involved Hezbollah — were broken almost as soon as they were announced.
Nevertheless, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun struck a hopeful note over the new framework, saying it would allow displaced Lebanese to return to their areas “under sovereignty of a Lebanese state that has no partner in its sovereignty over its land and its people,” in a rebuke of Hezbollah.
Israel, too, 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 U.S. backing. He added the agreement allows Israel freedom of action to neutralize what it deems as immediate or even emerging threats.
The framework has provisions for a test run of sorts, with Israeli troops withdrawing from two pilot zones where the Lebanese army will gradually assume security responsibilities.
Maps published by the Israeli government show the pilot zones encompassing the villages of Froun, Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh and Ghandouriyeh, but commentators question their value, noting Israel does not have a significant presence in those villages.
On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said during a news conference that “people should not hold their breath wondering where the next place will be from which Israel will withdraw in Lebanon,” and that Israel would not “withdraw a millimeter” until Hezbollah is disarmed. He added that in a meeting with U.S. military officials, they agreed Israel would remain in three security zones, in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.
He said the Israeli military will remain in Lebanon “long-term,” since he did not expect Lebanese soldiers to “suddenly become lions charging at Hezbollah.”
That skepticism was 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 sparking a civil war.
Dismissing the framework as more a collection of “diktats” than an agreement, Lebanese parliamentary speaker — and Hezbollah ally — Nabih Berri said in comments to Lebanese media that the deal “cannot be implemented.” He added the most dangerous aspect of the agreement was its potential “to incite internal divisions.”
But critics say that for Israel, that may be the point.
“The Israelis pushed for this knowing it wouldn’t work,” said Michael Young, senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
“It gives them two options: If the Lebanese army tries to disarm Hezbollah by force it will provoke a domestic conflict, which is fine for Israel and justifies its presence in south Lebanon. If the Lebanese army succeeds, which is unlikely, it’s also fine for Israel.”
There was little sign of the ceasefire on the ground Monday. The Israeli military said it hit areas near Nabatiyeh overnight, and there were reports of strikes throughout the day on parts of Lebanon’s south, along with systematic demolitions of buildings. The sound of an Israeli drone could be heard across Beirut.
Many Lebanese irate with the deal point out that the truce seems all too similar to the one brokered over Gaza. That truce is meant to bring about Hamas militants’ disarmament and an Israeli withdrawal after an initial cessation of hostilities and the unrestricted entry of aid, followed by the deployment of an International Stabilization Force and a transitional governing authority.
But none of that has happened, and Hamas rejected a new disarmament proposal in March that would force it to give up its tunnel network as well as rockets, heavy munitions, explosive devices and assault rifles before any Israel withdrawal.
Israeli attacks persist in the enclave. This month, health authorities tallied more than 1,000 people killed by Israeli attacks since the ceasefire’s signing.
Commentators say Hamas is pushing for the peace process in Northern Ireland as a possible model. In that process, the Irish Republican Army and its allies disarmed more than seven years after the 1998 signing of the Good Friday Agreement.
BEIRUT — Lebanon and Israel last week forged a framework agreement aimed at ending hostilities between the long-time enemies. But the U.S.-engineered deal hinges on what has been a non-starter for the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah: Disarmament.
The 14-point trilateral agreement, hailed by U.S. officials as a landmark step toward a durable peace treaty, stipulates Israel withdraw from areas its forces occupy in Lebanon, but only after Hezbollah completely disarms and the Lebanese army establishes control of the country’s south, Hezbollah’s heartland region and its primary staging ground for attacks on Israel.
Hezbollah was not included in the negotiations over the pact. Hezbollah head Naim Al-Qassem slammed the deal in a statement on Saturday as a “humiliation, a disgrace and a squandering of sovereignty.”
“Linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of [Hezbollah] across Lebanon is a highly dangerous proposal that crosses all red lines,” Al-Qassem said, adding that the deal legitimizes the presence of Israeli troops in Lebanon, possibly for years, and could lead to annexation. He vowed to continue fighting until Israel withdraws.
“We did not abandon the battlefield during the most difficult of circumstances, and we will not abandon it now,” he said.
Israel and Hezbollah have fought in successive wars for more than four decades. The most recent conflict began on March 2, when Hezbollah, whose main patron is Tehran, attacked northern Israel with a fusillade of drones and missiles a few days after the beginning of U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Israel retaliated by deepening its invasion into Lebanese territory and bombing what it said were Hezbollah-affiliated targets across the country.
Since then, Lebanese health authorities say more than 4,250 people have been killed — a toll that surpasses the war deaths in Iran but in a country 16 times less populous. Israeli troops occupy almost 800 square miles, a fifth of Lebanon’s territory, and have razed dozens of villages and towns in south Lebanon as part of establishing a self-declared security zone that would permanently displace hundreds of thousands.
Under the terms of the deal, which includes an unpublished Security Annex, there is no timetable for Israeli withdrawal, while any pullout is contingent on the Lebanese army following a “rigorous, performance-based program” to disarm Hezbollah and “exercise effective authority across Lebanon.” It would also involve the creation of a “military coordination group” to ensure the framework’s implementation.
A wider truce between the U.S. and Iran signed this month includes stipulations for both countries and their allies to stop military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. It also includes pledges to maintain the country’s territorial integrity, with Iran saying Israel should fully withdraw from Lebanon.
But the Lebanese government, which is wary of Tehran’s influence in the country and which sought to neutralize Hezbollah after the group’s previous war with Israel in 2024, insisted on de-linking itself from the U.S.-Iran accord and going ahead with separate negotiations. A number of ceasefires it signed with Israel over the last few months — none of which involved Hezbollah — were broken almost as soon as they were announced.
Nevertheless, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun struck a hopeful note over the new framework, saying it would allow displaced Lebanese to return to their areas “under sovereignty of a Lebanese state that has no partner in its sovereignty over its land and its people,” in a rebuke of Hezbollah.
Israel, too, 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 U.S. backing. He added the agreement allows Israel freedom of action to neutralize what it deems as immediate or even emerging threats.
The framework has provisions for a test run of sorts, with Israeli troops withdrawing from two pilot zones where the Lebanese army will gradually assume security responsibilities.
Maps published by the Israeli government show the pilot zones encompassing the villages of Froun, Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh and Ghandouriyeh, but commentators question their value, noting Israel does not have a significant presence in those villages.
On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said during a news conference that “people should not hold their breath wondering where the next place will be from which Israel will withdraw in Lebanon,” and that Israel would not “withdraw a millimeter” until Hezbollah is disarmed. He added that in a meeting with U.S. military officials, they agreed Israel would remain in three security zones, in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.
He said the Israeli military will remain in Lebanon “long-term,” since he did not expect Lebanese soldiers to “suddenly become lions charging at Hezbollah.”
That skepticism was 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 sparking a civil war.
Dismissing the framework as more a collection of “diktats” than an agreement, Lebanese parliamentary speaker — and Hezbollah ally — Nabih Berri said in comments to Lebanese media that the deal “cannot be implemented.” He added the most dangerous aspect of the agreement was its potential “to incite internal divisions.”
But critics say that for Israel, that may be the point.
“The Israelis pushed for this knowing it wouldn’t work,” said Michael Young, senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
“It gives them two options: If the Lebanese army tries to disarm Hezbollah by force it will provoke a domestic conflict, which is fine for Israel and justifies its presence in south Lebanon. If the Lebanese army succeeds, which is unlikely, it’s also fine for Israel.”
There was little sign of the ceasefire on the ground Monday. The Israeli military said it hit areas near Nabatiyeh overnight, and there were reports of strikes throughout the day on parts of Lebanon’s south, along with systematic demolitions of buildings. The sound of an Israeli drone could be heard across Beirut.
Many Lebanese irate with the deal point out that the truce seems all too similar to the one brokered over Gaza. That truce is meant to bring about Hamas militants’ disarmament and an Israeli withdrawal after an initial cessation of hostilities and the unrestricted entry of aid, followed by the deployment of an International Stabilization Force and a transitional governing authority.
But none of that has happened, and Hamas rejected a new disarmament proposal in March that would force it to give up its tunnel network as well as rockets, heavy munitions, explosive devices and assault rifles before any Israel withdrawal.
Israeli attacks persist in the enclave. This month, health authorities tallied more than 1,000 people killed by Israeli attacks since the ceasefire’s signing.
Commentators say Hamas is pushing for the peace process in Northern Ireland as a possible model. In that process, the Irish Republican Army and its allies disarmed more than seven years after the 1998 signing of the Good Friday Agreement.
BEIRUT — Lebanon and Israel last week forged a framework agreement aimed at ending hostilities between the long-time enemies. But the U.S.-engineered deal hinges on what has been a non-starter for the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah: Disarmament.
The 14-point trilateral agreement, hailed by U.S. officials as a landmark step toward a durable peace treaty, stipulates Israel withdraw from areas its forces occupy in Lebanon, but only after Hezbollah completely disarms and the Lebanese army establishes control of the country’s south, Hezbollah’s heartland region and its primary staging ground for attacks on Israel.
Hezbollah was not included in the negotiations over the pact. Hezbollah head Naim Al-Qassem slammed the deal in a statement on Saturday as a “humiliation, a disgrace and a squandering of sovereignty.”
“Linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of [Hezbollah] across Lebanon is a highly dangerous proposal that crosses all red lines,” Al-Qassem said, adding that the deal legitimizes the presence of Israeli troops in Lebanon, possibly for years, and could lead to annexation. He vowed to continue fighting until Israel withdraws.
“We did not abandon the battlefield during the most difficult of circumstances, and we will not abandon it now,” he said.
Israel and Hezbollah have fought in successive wars for more than four decades. The most recent conflict began on March 2, when Hezbollah, whose main patron is Tehran, attacked northern Israel with a fusillade of drones and missiles a few days after the beginning of U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Israel retaliated by deepening its invasion into Lebanese territory and bombing what it said were Hezbollah-affiliated targets across the country.
Since then, Lebanese health authorities say more than 4,250 people have been killed — a toll that surpasses the war deaths in Iran but in a country 16 times less populous. Israeli troops occupy almost 800 square miles, a fifth of Lebanon’s territory, and have razed dozens of villages and towns in south Lebanon as part of establishing a self-declared security zone that would permanently displace hundreds of thousands.
Under the terms of the deal, which includes an unpublished Security Annex, there is no timetable for Israeli withdrawal, while any pullout is contingent on the Lebanese army following a “rigorous, performance-based program” to disarm Hezbollah and “exercise effective authority across Lebanon.” It would also involve the creation of a “military coordination group” to ensure the framework’s implementation.
A wider truce between the U.S. and Iran signed this month includes stipulations for both countries and their allies to stop military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. It also includes pledges to maintain the country’s territorial integrity, with Iran saying Israel should fully withdraw from Lebanon.
But the Lebanese government, which is wary of Tehran’s influence in the country and which sought to neutralize Hezbollah after the group’s previous war with Israel in 2024, insisted on de-linking itself from the U.S.-Iran accord and going ahead with separate negotiations. A number of ceasefires it signed with Israel over the last few months — none of which involved Hezbollah — were broken almost as soon as they were announced.
Nevertheless, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun struck a hopeful note over the new framework, saying it would allow displaced Lebanese to return to their areas “under sovereignty of a Lebanese state that has no partner in its sovereignty over its land and its people,” in a rebuke of Hezbollah.
Israel, too, 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 U.S. backing. He added the agreement allows Israel freedom of action to neutralize what it deems as immediate or even emerging threats.
The framework has provisions for a test run of sorts, with Israeli troops withdrawing from two pilot zones where the Lebanese army will gradually assume security responsibilities.
Maps published by the Israeli government show the pilot zones encompassing the villages of Froun, Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh and Ghandouriyeh, but commentators question their value, noting Israel does not have a significant presence in those villages.
On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said during a news conference that “people should not hold their breath wondering where the next place will be from which Israel will withdraw in Lebanon,” and that Israel would not “withdraw a millimeter” until Hezbollah is disarmed. He added that in a meeting with U.S. military officials, they agreed Israel would remain in three security zones, in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.
He said the Israeli military will remain in Lebanon “long-term,” since he did not expect Lebanese soldiers to “suddenly become lions charging at Hezbollah.”
That skepticism was 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 sparking a civil war.
Dismissing the framework as more a collection of “diktats” than an agreement, Lebanese parliamentary speaker — and Hezbollah ally — Nabih Berri said in comments to Lebanese media that the deal “cannot be implemented.” He added the most dangerous aspect of the agreement was its potential “to incite internal divisions.”
But critics say that for Israel, that may be the point.
“The Israelis pushed for this knowing it wouldn’t work,” said Michael Young, senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
“It gives them two options: If the Lebanese army tries to disarm Hezbollah by force it will provoke a domestic conflict, which is fine for Israel and justifies its presence in south Lebanon. If the Lebanese army succeeds, which is unlikely, it’s also fine for Israel.”
There was little sign of the ceasefire on the ground Monday. The Israeli military said it hit areas near Nabatiyeh overnight, and there were reports of strikes throughout the day on parts of Lebanon’s south, along with systematic demolitions of buildings. The sound of an Israeli drone could be heard across Beirut.
Many Lebanese irate with the deal point out that the truce seems all too similar to the one brokered over Gaza. That truce is meant to bring about Hamas militants’ disarmament and an Israeli withdrawal after an initial cessation of hostilities and the unrestricted entry of aid, followed by the deployment of an International Stabilization Force and a transitional governing authority.
But none of that has happened, and Hamas rejected a new disarmament proposal in March that would force it to give up its tunnel network as well as rockets, heavy munitions, explosive devices and assault rifles before any Israel withdrawal.
Israeli attacks persist in the enclave. This month, health authorities tallied more than 1,000 people killed by Israeli attacks since the ceasefire’s signing.
Commentators say Hamas is pushing for the peace process in Northern Ireland as a possible model. In that process, the Irish Republican Army and its allies disarmed more than seven years after the 1998 signing of the Good Friday Agreement.
BEIRUT — Lebanon and Israel last week forged a framework agreement aimed at ending hostilities between the long-time enemies. But the U.S.-engineered deal hinges on what has been a non-starter for the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah: Disarmament.
The 14-point trilateral agreement, hailed by U.S. officials as a landmark step toward a durable peace treaty, stipulates Israel withdraw from areas its forces occupy in Lebanon, but only after Hezbollah completely disarms and the Lebanese army establishes control of the country’s south, Hezbollah’s heartland region and its primary staging ground for attacks on Israel.
Hezbollah was not included in the negotiations over the pact. Hezbollah head Naim Al-Qassem slammed the deal in a statement on Saturday as a “humiliation, a disgrace and a squandering of sovereignty.”
“Linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of [Hezbollah] across Lebanon is a highly dangerous proposal that crosses all red lines,” Al-Qassem said, adding that the deal legitimizes the presence of Israeli troops in Lebanon, possibly for years, and could lead to annexation. He vowed to continue fighting until Israel withdraws.
“We did not abandon the battlefield during the most difficult of circumstances, and we will not abandon it now,” he said.
Israel and Hezbollah have fought in successive wars for more than four decades. The most recent conflict began on March 2, when Hezbollah, whose main patron is Tehran, attacked northern Israel with a fusillade of drones and missiles a few days after the beginning of U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Israel retaliated by deepening its invasion into Lebanese territory and bombing what it said were Hezbollah-affiliated targets across the country.
Since then, Lebanese health authorities say more than 4,250 people have been killed — a toll that surpasses the war deaths in Iran but in a country 16 times less populous. Israeli troops occupy almost 800 square miles, a fifth of Lebanon’s territory, and have razed dozens of villages and towns in south Lebanon as part of establishing a self-declared security zone that would permanently displace hundreds of thousands.
Under the terms of the deal, which includes an unpublished Security Annex, there is no timetable for Israeli withdrawal, while any pullout is contingent on the Lebanese army following a “rigorous, performance-based program” to disarm Hezbollah and “exercise effective authority across Lebanon.” It would also involve the creation of a “military coordination group” to ensure the framework’s implementation.
A wider truce between the U.S. and Iran signed this month includes stipulations for both countries and their allies to stop military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. It also includes pledges to maintain the country’s territorial integrity, with Iran saying Israel should fully withdraw from Lebanon.
But the Lebanese government, which is wary of Tehran’s influence in the country and which sought to neutralize Hezbollah after the group’s previous war with Israel in 2024, insisted on de-linking itself from the U.S.-Iran accord and going ahead with separate negotiations. A number of ceasefires it signed with Israel over the last few months — none of which involved Hezbollah — were broken almost as soon as they were announced.
Nevertheless, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun struck a hopeful note over the new framework, saying it would allow displaced Lebanese to return to their areas “under sovereignty of a Lebanese state that has no partner in its sovereignty over its land and its people,” in a rebuke of Hezbollah.
Israel, too, 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 U.S. backing. He added the agreement allows Israel freedom of action to neutralize what it deems as immediate or even emerging threats.
The framework has provisions for a test run of sorts, with Israeli troops withdrawing from two pilot zones where the Lebanese army will gradually assume security responsibilities.
Maps published by the Israeli government show the pilot zones encompassing the villages of Froun, Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh and Ghandouriyeh, but commentators question their value, noting Israel does not have a significant presence in those villages.
On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said during a news conference that “people should not hold their breath wondering where the next place will be from which Israel will withdraw in Lebanon,” and that Israel would not “withdraw a millimeter” until Hezbollah is disarmed. He added that in a meeting with U.S. military officials, they agreed Israel would remain in three security zones, in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.
He said the Israeli military will remain in Lebanon “long-term,” since he did not expect Lebanese soldiers to “suddenly become lions charging at Hezbollah.”
That skepticism was 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 sparking a civil war.
Dismissing the framework as more a collection of “diktats” than an agreement, Lebanese parliamentary speaker — and Hezbollah ally — Nabih Berri said in comments to Lebanese media that the deal “cannot be implemented.” He added the most dangerous aspect of the agreement was its potential “to incite internal divisions.”
But critics say that for Israel, that may be the point.
“The Israelis pushed for this knowing it wouldn’t work,” said Michael Young, senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
“It gives them two options: If the Lebanese army tries to disarm Hezbollah by force it will provoke a domestic conflict, which is fine for Israel and justifies its presence in south Lebanon. If the Lebanese army succeeds, which is unlikely, it’s also fine for Israel.”
There was little sign of the ceasefire on the ground Monday. The Israeli military said it hit areas near Nabatiyeh overnight, and there were reports of strikes throughout the day on parts of Lebanon’s south, along with systematic demolitions of buildings. The sound of an Israeli drone could be heard across Beirut.
Many Lebanese irate with the deal point out that the truce seems all too similar to the one brokered over Gaza. That truce is meant to bring about Hamas militants’ disarmament and an Israeli withdrawal after an initial cessation of hostilities and the unrestricted entry of aid, followed by the deployment of an International Stabilization Force and a transitional governing authority.
But none of that has happened, and Hamas rejected a new disarmament proposal in March that would force it to give up its tunnel network as well as rockets, heavy munitions, explosive devices and assault rifles before any Israel withdrawal.
Israeli attacks persist in the enclave. This month, health authorities tallied more than 1,000 people killed by Israeli attacks since the ceasefire’s signing.
Commentators say Hamas is pushing for the peace process in Northern Ireland as a possible model. In that process, the Irish Republican Army and its allies disarmed more than seven years after the 1998 signing of the Good Friday Agreement.
BEIRUT — Lebanon and Israel last week forged a framework agreement aimed at ending hostilities between the long-time enemies. But the U.S.-engineered deal hinges on what has been a non-starter for the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah: Disarmament.
The 14-point trilateral agreement, hailed by U.S. officials as a landmark step toward a durable peace treaty, stipulates Israel withdraw from areas its forces occupy in Lebanon, but only after Hezbollah completely disarms and the Lebanese army establishes control of the country’s south, Hezbollah’s heartland region and its primary staging ground for attacks on Israel.
Hezbollah was not included in the negotiations over the pact. Hezbollah head Naim Al-Qassem slammed the deal in a statement on Saturday as a “humiliation, a disgrace and a squandering of sovereignty.”
“Linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of [Hezbollah] across Lebanon is a highly dangerous proposal that crosses all red lines,” Al-Qassem said, adding that the deal legitimizes the presence of Israeli troops in Lebanon, possibly for years, and could lead to annexation. He vowed to continue fighting until Israel withdraws.
“We did not abandon the battlefield during the most difficult of circumstances, and we will not abandon it now,” he said.
Israel and Hezbollah have fought in successive wars for more than four decades. The most recent conflict began on March 2, when Hezbollah, whose main patron is Tehran, attacked northern Israel with a fusillade of drones and missiles a few days after the beginning of U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Israel retaliated by deepening its invasion into Lebanese territory and bombing what it said were Hezbollah-affiliated targets across the country.
Since then, Lebanese health authorities say more than 4,250 people have been killed — a toll that surpasses the war deaths in Iran but in a country 16 times less populous. Israeli troops occupy almost 800 square miles, a fifth of Lebanon’s territory, and have razed dozens of villages and towns in south Lebanon as part of establishing a self-declared security zone that would permanently displace hundreds of thousands.
Under the terms of the deal, which includes an unpublished Security Annex, there is no timetable for Israeli withdrawal, while any pullout is contingent on the Lebanese army following a “rigorous, performance-based program” to disarm Hezbollah and “exercise effective authority across Lebanon.” It would also involve the creation of a “military coordination group” to ensure the framework’s implementation.
A wider truce between the U.S. and Iran signed this month includes stipulations for both countries and their allies to stop military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. It also includes pledges to maintain the country’s territorial integrity, with Iran saying Israel should fully withdraw from Lebanon.
But the Lebanese government, which is wary of Tehran’s influence in the country and which sought to neutralize Hezbollah after the group’s previous war with Israel in 2024, insisted on de-linking itself from the U.S.-Iran accord and going ahead with separate negotiations. A number of ceasefires it signed with Israel over the last few months — none of which involved Hezbollah — were broken almost as soon as they were announced.
Nevertheless, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun struck a hopeful note over the new framework, saying it would allow displaced Lebanese to return to their areas “under sovereignty of a Lebanese state that has no partner in its sovereignty over its land and its people,” in a rebuke of Hezbollah.
Israel, too, 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 U.S. backing. He added the agreement allows Israel freedom of action to neutralize what it deems as immediate or even emerging threats.
The framework has provisions for a test run of sorts, with Israeli troops withdrawing from two pilot zones where the Lebanese army will gradually assume security responsibilities.
Maps published by the Israeli government show the pilot zones encompassing the villages of Froun, Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh and Ghandouriyeh, but commentators question their value, noting Israel does not have a significant presence in those villages.
On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said during a news conference that “people should not hold their breath wondering where the next place will be from which Israel will withdraw in Lebanon,” and that Israel would not “withdraw a millimeter” until Hezbollah is disarmed. He added that in a meeting with U.S. military officials, they agreed Israel would remain in three security zones, in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.
He said the Israeli military will remain in Lebanon “long-term,” since he did not expect Lebanese soldiers to “suddenly become lions charging at Hezbollah.”
That skepticism was 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 sparking a civil war.
Dismissing the framework as more a collection of “diktats” than an agreement, Lebanese parliamentary speaker — and Hezbollah ally — Nabih Berri said in comments to Lebanese media that the deal “cannot be implemented.” He added the most dangerous aspect of the agreement was its potential “to incite internal divisions.”
But critics say that for Israel, that may be the point.
“The Israelis pushed for this knowing it wouldn’t work,” said Michael Young, senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
“It gives them two options: If the Lebanese army tries to disarm Hezbollah by force it will provoke a domestic conflict, which is fine for Israel and justifies its presence in south Lebanon. If the Lebanese army succeeds, which is unlikely, it’s also fine for Israel.”
There was little sign of the ceasefire on the ground Monday. The Israeli military said it hit areas near Nabatiyeh overnight, and there were reports of strikes throughout the day on parts of Lebanon’s south, along with systematic demolitions of buildings. The sound of an Israeli drone could be heard across Beirut.
Many Lebanese irate with the deal point out that the truce seems all too similar to the one brokered over Gaza. That truce is meant to bring about Hamas militants’ disarmament and an Israeli withdrawal after an initial cessation of hostilities and the unrestricted entry of aid, followed by the deployment of an International Stabilization Force and a transitional governing authority.
But none of that has happened, and Hamas rejected a new disarmament proposal in March that would force it to give up its tunnel network as well as rockets, heavy munitions, explosive devices and assault rifles before any Israel withdrawal.
Israeli attacks persist in the enclave. This month, health authorities tallied more than 1,000 people killed by Israeli attacks since the ceasefire’s signing.
Commentators say Hamas is pushing for the peace process in Northern Ireland as a possible model. In that process, the Irish Republican Army and its allies disarmed more than seven years after the 1998 signing of the Good Friday Agreement.
BEIRUT — Lebanon and Israel last week forged a framework agreement aimed at ending hostilities between the long-time enemies. But the U.S.-engineered deal hinges on what has been a non-starter for the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah: Disarmament.
The 14-point trilateral agreement, hailed by U.S. officials as a landmark step toward a durable peace treaty, stipulates Israel withdraw from areas its forces occupy in Lebanon, but only after Hezbollah completely disarms and the Lebanese army establishes control of the country’s south, Hezbollah’s heartland region and its primary staging ground for attacks on Israel.
Hezbollah was not included in the negotiations over the pact. Hezbollah head Naim Al-Qassem slammed the deal in a statement on Saturday as a “humiliation, a disgrace and a squandering of sovereignty.”
“Linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of [Hezbollah] across Lebanon is a highly dangerous proposal that crosses all red lines,” Al-Qassem said, adding that the deal legitimizes the presence of Israeli troops in Lebanon, possibly for years, and could lead to annexation. He vowed to continue fighting until Israel withdraws.
“We did not abandon the battlefield during the most difficult of circumstances, and we will not abandon it now,” he said.
Israel and Hezbollah have fought in successive wars for more than four decades. The most recent conflict began on March 2, when Hezbollah, whose main patron is Tehran, attacked northern Israel with a fusillade of drones and missiles a few days after the beginning of U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Israel retaliated by deepening its invasion into Lebanese territory and bombing what it said were Hezbollah-affiliated targets across the country.
Since then, Lebanese health authorities say more than 4,250 people have been killed — a toll that surpasses the war deaths in Iran but in a country 16 times less populous. Israeli troops occupy almost 800 square miles, a fifth of Lebanon’s territory, and have razed dozens of villages and towns in south Lebanon as part of establishing a self-declared security zone that would permanently displace hundreds of thousands.
Under the terms of the deal, which includes an unpublished Security Annex, there is no timetable for Israeli withdrawal, while any pullout is contingent on the Lebanese army following a “rigorous, performance-based program” to disarm Hezbollah and “exercise effective authority across Lebanon.” It would also involve the creation of a “military coordination group” to ensure the framework’s implementation.
A wider truce between the U.S. and Iran signed this month includes stipulations for both countries and their allies to stop military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. It also includes pledges to maintain the country’s territorial integrity, with Iran saying Israel should fully withdraw from Lebanon.
But the Lebanese government, which is wary of Tehran’s influence in the country and which sought to neutralize Hezbollah after the group’s previous war with Israel in 2024, insisted on de-linking itself from the U.S.-Iran accord and going ahead with separate negotiations. A number of ceasefires it signed with Israel over the last few months — none of which involved Hezbollah — were broken almost as soon as they were announced.
Nevertheless, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun struck a hopeful note over the new framework, saying it would allow displaced Lebanese to return to their areas “under sovereignty of a Lebanese state that has no partner in its sovereignty over its land and its people,” in a rebuke of Hezbollah.
Israel, too, 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 U.S. backing. He added the agreement allows Israel freedom of action to neutralize what it deems as immediate or even emerging threats.
The framework has provisions for a test run of sorts, with Israeli troops withdrawing from two pilot zones where the Lebanese army will gradually assume security responsibilities.
Maps published by the Israeli government show the pilot zones encompassing the villages of Froun, Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh and Ghandouriyeh, but commentators question their value, noting Israel does not have a significant presence in those villages.
On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said during a news conference that “people should not hold their breath wondering where the next place will be from which Israel will withdraw in Lebanon,” and that Israel would not “withdraw a millimeter” until Hezbollah is disarmed. He added that in a meeting with U.S. military officials, they agreed Israel would remain in three security zones, in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.
He said the Israeli military will remain in Lebanon “long-term,” since he did not expect Lebanese soldiers to “suddenly become lions charging at Hezbollah.”
That skepticism was 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 sparking a civil war.
Dismissing the framework as more a collection of “diktats” than an agreement, Lebanese parliamentary speaker — and Hezbollah ally — Nabih Berri said in comments to Lebanese media that the deal “cannot be implemented.” He added the most dangerous aspect of the agreement was its potential “to incite internal divisions.”
But critics say that for Israel, that may be the point.
“The Israelis pushed for this knowing it wouldn’t work,” said Michael Young, senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
“It gives them two options: If the Lebanese army tries to disarm Hezbollah by force it will provoke a domestic conflict, which is fine for Israel and justifies its presence in south Lebanon. If the Lebanese army succeeds, which is unlikely, it’s also fine for Israel.”
There was little sign of the ceasefire on the ground Monday. The Israeli military said it hit areas near Nabatiyeh overnight, and there were reports of strikes throughout the day on parts of Lebanon’s south, along with systematic demolitions of buildings. The sound of an Israeli drone could be heard across Beirut.
Many Lebanese irate with the deal point out that the truce seems all too similar to the one brokered over Gaza. That truce is meant to bring about Hamas militants’ disarmament and an Israeli withdrawal after an initial cessation of hostilities and the unrestricted entry of aid, followed by the deployment of an International Stabilization Force and a transitional governing authority.
But none of that has happened, and Hamas rejected a new disarmament proposal in March that would force it to give up its tunnel network as well as rockets, heavy munitions, explosive devices and assault rifles before any Israel withdrawal.
Israeli attacks persist in the enclave. This month, health authorities tallied more than 1,000 people killed by Israeli attacks since the ceasefire’s signing.
Commentators say Hamas is pushing for the peace process in Northern Ireland as a possible model. In that process, the Irish Republican Army and its allies disarmed more than seven years after the 1998 signing of the Good Friday Agreement.
BEIRUT — Lebanon and Israel last week forged a framework agreement aimed at ending hostilities between the long-time enemies. But the U.S.-engineered deal hinges on what has been a non-starter for the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah: Disarmament.
The 14-point trilateral agreement, hailed by U.S. officials as a landmark step toward a durable peace treaty, stipulates Israel withdraw from areas its forces occupy in Lebanon, but only after Hezbollah completely disarms and the Lebanese army establishes control of the country’s south, Hezbollah’s heartland region and its primary staging ground for attacks on Israel.
Hezbollah was not included in the negotiations over the pact. Hezbollah head Naim Al-Qassem slammed the deal in a statement on Saturday as a “humiliation, a disgrace and a squandering of sovereignty.”
“Linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of [Hezbollah] across Lebanon is a highly dangerous proposal that crosses all red lines,” Al-Qassem said, adding that the deal legitimizes the presence of Israeli troops in Lebanon, possibly for years, and could lead to annexation. He vowed to continue fighting until Israel withdraws.
“We did not abandon the battlefield during the most difficult of circumstances, and we will not abandon it now,” he said.
Israel and Hezbollah have fought in successive wars for more than four decades. The most recent conflict began on March 2, when Hezbollah, whose main patron is Tehran, attacked northern Israel with a fusillade of drones and missiles a few days after the beginning of U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Israel retaliated by deepening its invasion into Lebanese territory and bombing what it said were Hezbollah-affiliated targets across the country.
Since then, Lebanese health authorities say more than 4,250 people have been killed — a toll that surpasses the war deaths in Iran but in a country 16 times less populous. Israeli troops occupy almost 800 square miles, a fifth of Lebanon’s territory, and have razed dozens of villages and towns in south Lebanon as part of establishing a self-declared security zone that would permanently displace hundreds of thousands.
Under the terms of the deal, which includes an unpublished Security Annex, there is no timetable for Israeli withdrawal, while any pullout is contingent on the Lebanese army following a “rigorous, performance-based program” to disarm Hezbollah and “exercise effective authority across Lebanon.” It would also involve the creation of a “military coordination group” to ensure the framework’s implementation.
A wider truce between the U.S. and Iran signed this month includes stipulations for both countries and their allies to stop military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. It also includes pledges to maintain the country’s territorial integrity, with Iran saying Israel should fully withdraw from Lebanon.
But the Lebanese government, which is wary of Tehran’s influence in the country and which sought to neutralize Hezbollah after the group’s previous war with Israel in 2024, insisted on de-linking itself from the U.S.-Iran accord and going ahead with separate negotiations. A number of ceasefires it signed with Israel over the last few months — none of which involved Hezbollah — were broken almost as soon as they were announced.
Nevertheless, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun struck a hopeful note over the new framework, saying it would allow displaced Lebanese to return to their areas “under sovereignty of a Lebanese state that has no partner in its sovereignty over its land and its people,” in a rebuke of Hezbollah.
Israel, too, 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 U.S. backing. He added the agreement allows Israel freedom of action to neutralize what it deems as immediate or even emerging threats.
The framework has provisions for a test run of sorts, with Israeli troops withdrawing from two pilot zones where the Lebanese army will gradually assume security responsibilities.
Maps published by the Israeli government show the pilot zones encompassing the villages of Froun, Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh and Ghandouriyeh, but commentators question their value, noting Israel does not have a significant presence in those villages.
On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said during a news conference that “people should not hold their breath wondering where the next place will be from which Israel will withdraw in Lebanon,” and that Israel would not “withdraw a millimeter” until Hezbollah is disarmed. He added that in a meeting with U.S. military officials, they agreed Israel would remain in three security zones, in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.
He said the Israeli military will remain in Lebanon “long-term,” since he did not expect Lebanese soldiers to “suddenly become lions charging at Hezbollah.”
That skepticism was 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 sparking a civil war.
Dismissing the framework as more a collection of “diktats” than an agreement, Lebanese parliamentary speaker — and Hezbollah ally — Nabih Berri said in comments to Lebanese media that the deal “cannot be implemented.” He added the most dangerous aspect of the agreement was its potential “to incite internal divisions.”
But critics say that for Israel, that may be the point.
“The Israelis pushed for this knowing it wouldn’t work,” said Michael Young, senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
“It gives them two options: If the Lebanese army tries to disarm Hezbollah by force it will provoke a domestic conflict, which is fine for Israel and justifies its presence in south Lebanon. If the Lebanese army succeeds, which is unlikely, it’s also fine for Israel.”
There was little sign of the ceasefire on the ground Monday. The Israeli military said it hit areas near Nabatiyeh overnight, and there were reports of strikes throughout the day on parts of Lebanon’s south, along with systematic demolitions of buildings. The sound of an Israeli drone could be heard across Beirut.
Many Lebanese irate with the deal point out that the truce seems all too similar to the one brokered over Gaza. That truce is meant to bring about Hamas militants’ disarmament and an Israeli withdrawal after an initial cessation of hostilities and the unrestricted entry of aid, followed by the deployment of an International Stabilization Force and a transitional governing authority.
But none of that has happened, and Hamas rejected a new disarmament proposal in March that would force it to give up its tunnel network as well as rockets, heavy munitions, explosive devices and assault rifles before any Israel withdrawal.
Israeli attacks persist in the enclave. This month, health authorities tallied more than 1,000 people killed by Israeli attacks since the ceasefire’s signing.
Commentators say Hamas is pushing for the peace process in Northern Ireland as a possible model. In that process, the Irish Republican Army and its allies disarmed more than seven years after the 1998 signing of the Good Friday Agreement.
BEIRUT — Lebanon and Israel last week forged a framework agreement aimed at ending hostilities between the long-time enemies. But the U.S.-engineered deal hinges on what has been a non-starter for the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah: Disarmament.
The 14-point trilateral agreement, hailed by U.S. officials as a landmark step toward a durable peace treaty, stipulates Israel withdraw from areas its forces occupy in Lebanon, but only after Hezbollah completely disarms and the Lebanese army establishes control of the country’s south, Hezbollah’s heartland region and its primary staging ground for attacks on Israel.
Hezbollah was not included in the negotiations over the pact. Hezbollah head Naim Al-Qassem slammed the deal in a statement on Saturday as a “humiliation, a disgrace and a squandering of sovereignty.”
“Linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of [Hezbollah] across Lebanon is a highly dangerous proposal that crosses all red lines,” Al-Qassem said, adding that the deal legitimizes the presence of Israeli troops in Lebanon, possibly for years, and could lead to annexation. He vowed to continue fighting until Israel withdraws.
“We did not abandon the battlefield during the most difficult of circumstances, and we will not abandon it now,” he said.
Israel and Hezbollah have fought in successive wars for more than four decades. The most recent conflict began on March 2, when Hezbollah, whose main patron is Tehran, attacked northern Israel with a fusillade of drones and missiles a few days after the beginning of U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Israel retaliated by deepening its invasion into Lebanese territory and bombing what it said were Hezbollah-affiliated targets across the country.
Since then, Lebanese health authorities say more than 4,250 people have been killed — a toll that surpasses the war deaths in Iran but in a country 16 times less populous. Israeli troops occupy almost 800 square miles, a fifth of Lebanon’s territory, and have razed dozens of villages and towns in south Lebanon as part of establishing a self-declared security zone that would permanently displace hundreds of thousands.
Under the terms of the deal, which includes an unpublished Security Annex, there is no timetable for Israeli withdrawal, while any pullout is contingent on the Lebanese army following a “rigorous, performance-based program” to disarm Hezbollah and “exercise effective authority across Lebanon.” It would also involve the creation of a “military coordination group” to ensure the framework’s implementation.
A wider truce between the U.S. and Iran signed this month includes stipulations for both countries and their allies to stop military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. It also includes pledges to maintain the country’s territorial integrity, with Iran saying Israel should fully withdraw from Lebanon.
But the Lebanese government, which is wary of Tehran’s influence in the country and which sought to neutralize Hezbollah after the group’s previous war with Israel in 2024, insisted on de-linking itself from the U.S.-Iran accord and going ahead with separate negotiations. A number of ceasefires it signed with Israel over the last few months — none of which involved Hezbollah — were broken almost as soon as they were announced.
Nevertheless, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun struck a hopeful note over the new framework, saying it would allow displaced Lebanese to return to their areas “under sovereignty of a Lebanese state that has no partner in its sovereignty over its land and its people,” in a rebuke of Hezbollah.
Israel, too, 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 U.S. backing. He added the agreement allows Israel freedom of action to neutralize what it deems as immediate or even emerging threats.
The framework has provisions for a test run of sorts, with Israeli troops withdrawing from two pilot zones where the Lebanese army will gradually assume security responsibilities.
Maps published by the Israeli government show the pilot zones encompassing the villages of Froun, Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh and Ghandouriyeh, but commentators question their value, noting Israel does not have a significant presence in those villages.
On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said during a news conference that “people should not hold their breath wondering where the next place will be from which Israel will withdraw in Lebanon,” and that Israel would not “withdraw a millimeter” until Hezbollah is disarmed. He added that in a meeting with U.S. military officials, they agreed Israel would remain in three security zones, in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.
He said the Israeli military will remain in Lebanon “long-term,” since he did not expect Lebanese soldiers to “suddenly become lions charging at Hezbollah.”
That skepticism was 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 sparking a civil war.
Dismissing the framework as more a collection of “diktats” than an agreement, Lebanese parliamentary speaker — and Hezbollah ally — Nabih Berri said in comments to Lebanese media that the deal “cannot be implemented.” He added the most dangerous aspect of the agreement was its potential “to incite internal divisions.”
But critics say that for Israel, that may be the point.
“The Israelis pushed for this knowing it wouldn’t work,” said Michael Young, senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
“It gives them two options: If the Lebanese army tries to disarm Hezbollah by force it will provoke a domestic conflict, which is fine for Israel and justifies its presence in south Lebanon. If the Lebanese army succeeds, which is unlikely, it’s also fine for Israel.”
There was little sign of the ceasefire on the ground Monday. The Israeli military said it hit areas near Nabatiyeh overnight, and there were reports of strikes throughout the day on parts of Lebanon’s south, along with systematic demolitions of buildings. The sound of an Israeli drone could be heard across Beirut.
Many Lebanese irate with the deal point out that the truce seems all too similar to the one brokered over Gaza. That truce is meant to bring about Hamas militants’ disarmament and an Israeli withdrawal after an initial cessation of hostilities and the unrestricted entry of aid, followed by the deployment of an International Stabilization Force and a transitional governing authority.
But none of that has happened, and Hamas rejected a new disarmament proposal in March that would force it to give up its tunnel network as well as rockets, heavy munitions, explosive devices and assault rifles before any Israel withdrawal.
Israeli attacks persist in the enclave. This month, health authorities tallied more than 1,000 people killed by Israeli attacks since the ceasefire’s signing.
Commentators say Hamas is pushing for the peace process in Northern Ireland as a possible model. In that process, the Irish Republican Army and its allies disarmed more than seven years after the 1998 signing of the Good Friday Agreement.
BEIRUT — Lebanon and Israel last week forged a framework agreement aimed at ending hostilities between the long-time enemies. But the U.S.-engineered deal hinges on what has been a non-starter for the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah: Disarmament.
The 14-point trilateral agreement, hailed by U.S. officials as a landmark step toward a durable peace treaty, stipulates Israel withdraw from areas its forces occupy in Lebanon, but only after Hezbollah completely disarms and the Lebanese army establishes control of the country’s south, Hezbollah’s heartland region and its primary staging ground for attacks on Israel.
Hezbollah was not included in the negotiations over the pact. Hezbollah head Naim Al-Qassem slammed the deal in a statement on Saturday as a “humiliation, a disgrace and a squandering of sovereignty.”
“Linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of [Hezbollah] across Lebanon is a highly dangerous proposal that crosses all red lines,” Al-Qassem said, adding that the deal legitimizes the presence of Israeli troops in Lebanon, possibly for years, and could lead to annexation. He vowed to continue fighting until Israel withdraws.
“We did not abandon the battlefield during the most difficult of circumstances, and we will not abandon it now,” he said.
Israel and Hezbollah have fought in successive wars for more than four decades. The most recent conflict began on March 2, when Hezbollah, whose main patron is Tehran, attacked northern Israel with a fusillade of drones and missiles a few days after the beginning of U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Israel retaliated by deepening its invasion into Lebanese territory and bombing what it said were Hezbollah-affiliated targets across the country.
Since then, Lebanese health authorities say more than 4,250 people have been killed — a toll that surpasses the war deaths in Iran but in a country 16 times less populous. Israeli troops occupy almost 800 square miles, a fifth of Lebanon’s territory, and have razed dozens of villages and towns in south Lebanon as part of establishing a self-declared security zone that would permanently displace hundreds of thousands.
Under the terms of the deal, which includes an unpublished Security Annex, there is no timetable for Israeli withdrawal, while any pullout is contingent on the Lebanese army following a “rigorous, performance-based program” to disarm Hezbollah and “exercise effective authority across Lebanon.” It would also involve the creation of a “military coordination group” to ensure the framework’s implementation.
A wider truce between the U.S. and Iran signed this month includes stipulations for both countries and their allies to stop military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. It also includes pledges to maintain the country’s territorial integrity, with Iran saying Israel should fully withdraw from Lebanon.
But the Lebanese government, which is wary of Tehran’s influence in the country and which sought to neutralize Hezbollah after the group’s previous war with Israel in 2024, insisted on de-linking itself from the U.S.-Iran accord and going ahead with separate negotiations. A number of ceasefires it signed with Israel over the last few months — none of which involved Hezbollah — were broken almost as soon as they were announced.
Nevertheless, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun struck a hopeful note over the new framework, saying it would allow displaced Lebanese to return to their areas “under sovereignty of a Lebanese state that has no partner in its sovereignty over its land and its people,” in a rebuke of Hezbollah.
Israel, too, 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 U.S. backing. He added the agreement allows Israel freedom of action to neutralize what it deems as immediate or even emerging threats.
The framework has provisions for a test run of sorts, with Israeli troops withdrawing from two pilot zones where the Lebanese army will gradually assume security responsibilities.
Maps published by the Israeli government show the pilot zones encompassing the villages of Froun, Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh and Ghandouriyeh, but commentators question their value, noting Israel does not have a significant presence in those villages.
On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said during a news conference that “people should not hold their breath wondering where the next place will be from which Israel will withdraw in Lebanon,” and that Israel would not “withdraw a millimeter” until Hezbollah is disarmed. He added that in a meeting with U.S. military officials, they agreed Israel would remain in three security zones, in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.
He said the Israeli military will remain in Lebanon “long-term,” since he did not expect Lebanese soldiers to “suddenly become lions charging at Hezbollah.”
That skepticism was 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 sparking a civil war.
Dismissing the framework as more a collection of “diktats” than an agreement, Lebanese parliamentary speaker — and Hezbollah ally — Nabih Berri said in comments to Lebanese media that the deal “cannot be implemented.” He added the most dangerous aspect of the agreement was its potential “to incite internal divisions.”
But critics say that for Israel, that may be the point.
“The Israelis pushed for this knowing it wouldn’t work,” said Michael Young, senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
“It gives them two options: If the Lebanese army tries to disarm Hezbollah by force it will provoke a domestic conflict, which is fine for Israel and justifies its presence in south Lebanon. If the Lebanese army succeeds, which is unlikely, it’s also fine for Israel.”
There was little sign of the ceasefire on the ground Monday. The Israeli military said it hit areas near Nabatiyeh overnight, and there were reports of strikes throughout the day on parts of Lebanon’s south, along with systematic demolitions of buildings. The sound of an Israeli drone could be heard across Beirut.
Many Lebanese irate with the deal point out that the truce seems all too similar to the one brokered over Gaza. That truce is meant to bring about Hamas militants’ disarmament and an Israeli withdrawal after an initial cessation of hostilities and the unrestricted entry of aid, followed by the deployment of an International Stabilization Force and a transitional governing authority.
But none of that has happened, and Hamas rejected a new disarmament proposal in March that would force it to give up its tunnel network as well as rockets, heavy munitions, explosive devices and assault rifles before any Israel withdrawal.
Israeli attacks persist in the enclave. This month, health authorities tallied more than 1,000 people killed by Israeli attacks since the ceasefire’s signing.
Commentators say Hamas is pushing for the peace process in Northern Ireland as a possible model. In that process, the Irish Republican Army and its allies disarmed more than seven years after the 1998 signing of the Good Friday Agreement.
BEIRUT — Lebanon and Israel last week forged a framework agreement aimed at ending hostilities between the long-time enemies. But the U.S.-engineered deal hinges on what has been a non-starter for the Lebanese Shiite militant group Hezbollah: Disarmament.
The 14-point trilateral agreement, hailed by U.S. officials as a landmark step toward a durable peace treaty, stipulates Israel withdraw from areas its forces occupy in Lebanon, but only after Hezbollah completely disarms and the Lebanese army establishes control of the country’s south, Hezbollah’s heartland region and its primary staging ground for attacks on Israel.
Hezbollah was not included in the negotiations over the pact. Hezbollah head Naim Al-Qassem slammed the deal in a statement on Saturday as a “humiliation, a disgrace and a squandering of sovereignty.”
“Linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of [Hezbollah] across Lebanon is a highly dangerous proposal that crosses all red lines,” Al-Qassem said, adding that the deal legitimizes the presence of Israeli troops in Lebanon, possibly for years, and could lead to annexation. He vowed to continue fighting until Israel withdraws.
“We did not abandon the battlefield during the most difficult of circumstances, and we will not abandon it now,” he said.
Israel and Hezbollah have fought in successive wars for more than four decades. The most recent conflict began on March 2, when Hezbollah, whose main patron is Tehran, attacked northern Israel with a fusillade of drones and missiles a few days after the beginning of U.S.-Israeli war on Iran. Israel retaliated by deepening its invasion into Lebanese territory and bombing what it said were Hezbollah-affiliated targets across the country.
Since then, Lebanese health authorities say more than 4,250 people have been killed — a toll that surpasses the war deaths in Iran but in a country 16 times less populous. Israeli troops occupy almost 800 square miles, a fifth of Lebanon’s territory, and have razed dozens of villages and towns in south Lebanon as part of establishing a self-declared security zone that would permanently displace hundreds of thousands.
Under the terms of the deal, which includes an unpublished Security Annex, there is no timetable for Israeli withdrawal, while any pullout is contingent on the Lebanese army following a “rigorous, performance-based program” to disarm Hezbollah and “exercise effective authority across Lebanon.” It would also involve the creation of a “military coordination group” to ensure the framework’s implementation.
A wider truce between the U.S. and Iran signed this month includes stipulations for both countries and their allies to stop military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon. It also includes pledges to maintain the country’s territorial integrity, with Iran saying Israel should fully withdraw from Lebanon.
But the Lebanese government, which is wary of Tehran’s influence in the country and which sought to neutralize Hezbollah after the group’s previous war with Israel in 2024, insisted on de-linking itself from the U.S.-Iran accord and going ahead with separate negotiations. A number of ceasefires it signed with Israel over the last few months — none of which involved Hezbollah — were broken almost as soon as they were announced.
Nevertheless, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun struck a hopeful note over the new framework, saying it would allow displaced Lebanese to return to their areas “under sovereignty of a Lebanese state that has no partner in its sovereignty over its land and its people,” in a rebuke of Hezbollah.
Israel, too, 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 U.S. backing. He added the agreement allows Israel freedom of action to neutralize what it deems as immediate or even emerging threats.
The framework has provisions for a test run of sorts, with Israeli troops withdrawing from two pilot zones where the Lebanese army will gradually assume security responsibilities.
Maps published by the Israeli government show the pilot zones encompassing the villages of Froun, Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh and Ghandouriyeh, but commentators question their value, noting Israel does not have a significant presence in those villages.
On Monday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said during a news conference that “people should not hold their breath wondering where the next place will be from which Israel will withdraw in Lebanon,” and that Israel would not “withdraw a millimeter” until Hezbollah is disarmed. He added that in a meeting with U.S. military officials, they agreed Israel would remain in three security zones, in Lebanon, Syria and Gaza.
He said the Israeli military will remain in Lebanon “long-term,” since he did not expect Lebanese soldiers to “suddenly become lions charging at Hezbollah.”
That skepticism was 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 sparking a civil war.
Dismissing the framework as more a collection of “diktats” than an agreement, Lebanese parliamentary speaker — and Hezbollah ally — Nabih Berri said in comments to Lebanese media that the deal “cannot be implemented.” He added the most dangerous aspect of the agreement was its potential “to incite internal divisions.”
But critics say that for Israel, that may be the point.
“The Israelis pushed for this knowing it wouldn’t work,” said Michael Young, senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut.
“It gives them two options: If the Lebanese army tries to disarm Hezbollah by force it will provoke a domestic conflict, which is fine for Israel and justifies its presence in south Lebanon. If the Lebanese army succeeds, which is unlikely, it’s also fine for Israel.”
There was little sign of the ceasefire on the ground Monday. The Israeli military said it hit areas near Nabatiyeh overnight, and there were reports of strikes throughout the day on parts of Lebanon’s south, along with systematic demolitions of buildings. The sound of an Israeli drone could be heard across Beirut.
Many Lebanese irate with the deal point out that the truce seems all too similar to the one brokered over Gaza. That truce is meant to bring about Hamas militants’ disarmament and an Israeli withdrawal after an initial cessation of hostilities and the unrestricted entry of aid, followed by the deployment of an International Stabilization Force and a transitional governing authority.
But none of that has happened, and Hamas rejected a new disarmament proposal in March that would force it to give up its tunnel network as well as rockets, heavy munitions, explosive devices and assault rifles before any Israel withdrawal.
Israeli attacks persist in the enclave. This month, health authorities tallied more than 1,000 people killed by Israeli attacks since the ceasefire’s signing.
Commentators say Hamas is pushing for the peace process in Northern Ireland as a possible model. In that process, the Irish Republican Army and its allies disarmed more than seven years after the 1998 signing of the Good Friday Agreement.
