Full story
Framework signed in Washington
A US-brokered framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel was signed in Washington on 26 June, with the text laying out a phased approach in which the Lebanese army would assume control of designated “pilot zones,” dismantle the infrastructure of non-state armed groups, and verify their disarmament before Israeli forces gradually redeploy.
“Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem described the agreement as “a humiliation, a disgrace and a surrender of sovereignty””
Middle East Eye reported that Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem called the agreement “a humiliation, a disgrace and a surrender of sovereignty,” declaring it effectively null and void, while Lebanese President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam defended the deal as a process meant to restore state sovereignty and secure a complete Israeli withdrawal.
The same Middle East Eye account said the Higher Islamic Shia Council called it an “agreement of submission” imposed under American pressure, comparing it to the failed 17 May 1983 agreement with Israel.
In a separate analysis, The Washington Institute’s Robert Satloff described the June 26 signing as “a substantial step-up from the ‘statement of intent’ they had been expected to endorse,” and said the agreement’s fourteen-point structure sets the focus for Israel-Lebanon diplomacy going forward.
Opposition, restraint, and ratification
Middle East Eye said Lebanon’s political opposition to the framework extends beyond Hezbollah and its ally Amal to figures including Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri and the head of Amal movement, and it framed the dispute as centered on sovereignty, accountability, and the balance of obligations imposed on both sides.
The outlet quoted a Lebanese presidency source saying, “there is an understanding with all the objecting parties not to blow up the situation internally,” adding that communication had taken place with opponents to prevent the crisis from developing into an internal confrontation.
That same source told Middle East Eye that “there is work under way to control the post-agreement phase internally,” while The Washington Institute’s Robert Satloff emphasized that paragraph 12 requires the two sides to immediately begin “working groups to draft the full comprehensive peace and security agreement.”
In parallel, the UN welcomed the US-sponsored trilateral framework as a “milestone” toward lasting stability, with UN spokesperson Stephane Dujarric saying “the trilateral framework between the US, the State of Israel, and the Republic of Lebanon, announced on June 26th, constitutes a milestone in efforts to end decades of conflict.”
Sovereignty, weapons monopoly, and risks
France’s Ministry for Europe and Foreign Affairs said the agreement brokered by the United States and signed in Washington should pave the way for “the establishment of a full monopoly on weapons by the Lebanese State” and for the withdrawal of the Israeli army from Lebanese territory.
“the establishment of a full monopoly on weapons by the Lebanese State”
The Washington Institute’s Robert Satloff described the agreement’s core strategic objective as establishing peace between the two countries, noting that the text uses “peace” or “peaceful” ten times and that paragraph 12 calls for working groups to draft the full comprehensive peace and security agreement.
The Jerusalem Post’s Sarit Zehavi said the most important part of the agreement may be “the part that remains unpublished,” and she argued that the pilot-zone mechanism remains unclear, including whether the Israel Defense Forces, the Lebanese Armed Forces, or both would be responsible for removing Hezbollah infrastructure.
In the same account, Zehavi warned that “Hezbollah doesn’t want to be disarmed. Hezbollah wants to preserve its power,” and she described the fear in Lebanon that any attempt by the Lebanese army to enforce the agreement could raise the specter of civil war.
