Full story
Deal signed, justice fears
A Lebanon-Israel framework agreement signed in Washington on June 26 has drawn criticism from six prominent human rights and media freedom organisations, which said it “threatens to betray the victims of war crimes” in Lebanon.
The groups warned that parts of the text “appear to be aimed at preventing victims of serious international crimes from seeking justice before international forums,” and they singled out clauses 3 and 13 as particularly concerning.
They said Clause 3 would “prevent Lebanon and Israel from having recourse to international courts, including the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice,” and they argued it also conditions residents’ return on “successful disarmament of non-state armed groups and dismantlement of their infrastructure.”
The organisations said the agreement comes after “months of hostilities resulting in immense civilian harm,” and they pointed to deaths and displacement, saying the conflict has “killed at least 4,300 people, injured over 12,000 and forced hundreds of thousands from their homes since early March.”
Rights groups vs Lebanon
Amnesty International Secretary General Agnès Callamard said, “Victims of war crimes and other violations deserve justice,” adding that “Any agreement that fails to center their rights to justice, accountability and reparations will falter underneath the very impunity it builds.”
Legal Agenda head of litigation Ghida Frangieh argued, “Accountability and respect for international law are not bargaining chips. They are legal obligations.”
Human Rights Watch also denounced the framework, with L’Orient-Le Jour quoting HRW’s programs director Lama Fakih saying, “It risks depriving victims of justice at a moment when evidence is mounting toward illegal and repeated Israeli attacks.”
Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun, speaking during a meeting reported by the presidency, said the framework deal “does not legitimise the continued Israeli occupation of Lebanon,” and he said it instead empowers the Lebanese army to extend its authority across the country’s territory.
Displacement, withdrawal, fallout
The organisations said the agreement also appears to acquiesce to “the prolonged and indefinite forced displacement of tens of thousands of residents” of southern Lebanon occupied by Israeli forces, and they warned that Clause 13 would “prevent Lebanon and Israel from having recourse to international courts.”
“The Israel-Lebanon framework agreement “threatens to betray the victims of war crimes” in Lebanon, according to six prominent human rights and media freedom organisations”
They argued that under international humanitarian law, “people must be allowed to return once hostilities have ended or the reasons for their displacement cease to exist,” while Amnesty International said the text could contradict obligations to pursue accountability for serious international crimes committed on territories.
In parallel, the debate in Lebanon has continued over whether the framework’s security and withdrawal terms will be implemented, with Radio-Canada reporting that the ceasefire protocol signed on June 17 between Tehran and Washington allowed a ceasefire to take effect on June 21 ahead of the June 26 signing.
Radio-Canada also reported that Joseph Aoun stressed the agreement “did not legitimize the continuation of the Israeli occupation of Lebanon,” while Amnesty International and five other NGOs said the text risks obscuring war crimes by seemingly preventing victims from seeking justice before international courts.
