Al-Arabiya and Al-Hadath revealed the details of the framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel, consisting of 14 items, which was signed under the auspices of the United States after 5 rounds of talks between Lebanese and Israeli envoys hosted by the US State Department, in a step that paves the way for an end to the war on the Lebanese front and the opening of a new negotiating path between the two sides.
According to the details, the agreement stipulates that the Lebanese Armed Forces will regain its authority throughout Lebanon, after verifying the disarmament of non-state armed groups, allowing the Israeli army to gradually withdraw from Lebanese territory.
The agreement affirms that the Lebanese security forces bear exclusive responsibility for the security and defense of Lebanon, and for deciding on matters of war and peace. It also includes a clause granting Israel the right to respond if it is attacked by Hezbollah, in parallel with emphasizing the need for the two countries to live in peace side by side.
The agreement also stipulates the formation of working teams between the two parties to formulate a comprehensive peace agreement, in what appears to be an American attempt to move the path from the framework of stopping the war and security arrangements to a broader discussion of the future of the relationship between Lebanon and Israel.
On the other hand, Lebanese sources confirmed to Al Arabiya that the framework for action with Israel clearly talks about “phased redeployment,” and does not include any recognition of a permanent Israeli military presence inside Lebanese territory, stressing that the statement of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu contradicts and goes beyond the draft framework.
The same sources indicated that the deployment of the Lebanese army would not be subject to permission from Israel, and that the establishment of the experimental zones would be done by mutual agreement and not determined by Israel alone, in a clear response to the Israeli narrative that tried to portray the agreement as a confirmation of the Israeli army’s stay in the so-called “security zone” until Hezbollah disarmed.
During the signing ceremony, in which the flags of Lebanon, Israel, and the United States were raised side by side, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said: “We are pleased to announce a framework agreement between the sovereign Lebanese government and of course the government of Israel, with the mediation and support of the United States,” noting that the agreement paves the way “for a framework for lasting peace and security.”
For her part, Lebanese Ambassador to Washington Nada Hamada Moawad said that the agreement constitutes “a first step on the path to restoring Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity, securing a permanent and final cessation of hostilities, and enabling our people to return to their land.”
As for the Israeli ambassador to Washington, Yechiel Leiter, he considered that the agreement puts “Iran out of the picture, and Hezbollah out of the picture,” indicating that the path to peace between Israel and Lebanon is now open.
Despite the signing of the agreement, fundamental differences remained between Israel and Hezbollah, as Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem affirmed that “Israel has no choice” but to withdraw “without restrictions” from southern Lebanon, in exchange for Netanyahu’s announcement that Israel will not withdraw its forces from southern Lebanon as long as Hezbollah is not disarmed.
Netanyahu said in a video clip, “The most important thing, first of all, is that Israel will remain in the security zone in southern Lebanon,” describing this as a “major achievement,” stressing that Israel will maintain it as long as Hezbollah is not disarmed.
In this context, the American website “Axios” reported that the agreement stipulates the withdrawal of Israeli forces from limited areas in Lebanon, which is what Netanyahu referred to when he spoke about Israel allowing the Lebanese army to control “two experimental areas,” one of which is located completely outside the security zone and south of the Litani River, while the second is located north of the Litani River.
Netanyahu also said that residents who were displaced from the security zone established by the Israeli army in southern Lebanon will not be allowed to return under the new agreement, which opens the door to a wide debate about the right to return to border villages and towns, and about the interpretation of the terms of the agreement between the Lebanese and Israeli versions.
These developments come after direct negotiations that began in April between the Lebanese and Israeli governments, in a path that Hezbollah repeatedly confirmed its rejection of, while previous ceasefire agreements did not lead to a radical change in the field reality, with the continuation of Israeli strikes and ground advances on the one hand, and Hezbollah targeting Israeli sites and forces in southern Lebanon and northern Israel on the other hand.
The Lebanese front witnessed a relative decline in military operations following the signing of the Iranian-American memorandum of understanding on June 17, which stipulated stopping the war on various fronts, including Lebanon, amid Iranian insistence that any final agreement with Washington include a halt to the war in Lebanon, in exchange for President Joseph Aoun’s efforts to separate the Lebanon file from the American-Iranian talks.
The framework agreement places Lebanon at a very sensitive stage, as the demand to restore full sovereignty over Lebanese territory intersects with the clause of disarming non-state armed groups, and with the Israeli proposal regarding the right to respond and remain in certain areas until specific security conditions are met.
The importance of the Lebanese position lies in that it is trying to prevent the agreement from being turned into a cover for a long-term Israeli military presence, by emphasizing that what is happening is a phased redeployment, and that the Lebanese army is the only legitimate body concerned with assuming security responsibility over the entire territory, not with the permission of Israel, but under a mutual agreement and American sponsorship.
Thus, the agreement does not appear to be just a technical document with 14 clauses, but rather the beginning of a political and diplomatic confrontation over the interpretation of each of its clauses: Israel presents it as a security achievement that gives it the right to stay and respond, while Lebanon presents it as a path to regain land and sovereignty and stop the war, and between the two narratives the nature of the next stage on the southern border will actually be determined.
