By Ginika Igboke
Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem on Saturday strongly rejected a newly signed U.S.-brokered security agreement between Lebanon and Israel, describing the deal as an unacceptable surrender to Israel and vowing that the Iranian-backed group would continue its armed resistance despite renewed diplomatic efforts to stabilize the region.
His remarks came just one day after Lebanon and Israel agreed to a new security framework designed to reduce hostilities along their shared border. However, hopes for a lasting reduction in violence were quickly overshadowed when an Israeli drone carried out a strike in southern Lebanon, highlighting the fragile nature of the latest agreement.
The renewed tensions underscore the ongoing instability that has persisted despite multiple ceasefire attempts and diplomatic initiatives following the broader conflict involving Iran, Israel, and the United States.
Hezbollah Rejects Terms of Agreement
In a televised statement, Qassem declared that Hezbollah does not recognize the new agreement negotiated with U.S. involvement, calling it “null and void” and accusing Lebanese officials of making one-sided concessions that compromise the country’s sovereignty.
According to Qassem, the agreement effectively legitimizes Israel’s continued military presence in southern Lebanon while demanding concessions from Hezbollah that the organization considers unacceptable.
He criticized provisions that tie Israel’s gradual withdrawal from Lebanese territory to the future disarmament of Hezbollah, arguing that such conditions cross “all red lines” and undermine Lebanon’s right to defend itself.
“The agreement represents a surrender to Israel,” Qassem said, insisting that Hezbollah had no intention of abandoning its military role.
“We did not leave the battlefield in the most difficult circumstances, and we will not leave it,” he declared, reaffirming the group’s commitment to maintaining its armed capabilities.
Framework Calls for Phased Israeli Withdrawal
The security framework, signed Friday with U.S. mediation, outlines a phased Israeli withdrawal from portions of southern Lebanon while gradually transferring security responsibilities to the Lebanese Armed Forces.
Under the agreement, Lebanese army units would deploy into areas vacated by Israeli troops in an effort to restore government authority and reduce the likelihood of renewed fighting.
However, the agreement also allows Israeli forces to remain temporarily inside an expanded security zone near the border until additional security measures are implemented and both sides meet agreed benchmarks.
Supporters of the agreement argue that the phased approach is intended to prevent a security vacuum and reduce the risk of further cross-border attacks.
Hezbollah, however, maintains that allowing Israeli troops to remain on Lebanese territory under any circumstances amounts to an occupation and violates Lebanon’s sovereignty.
Israeli Drone Strike Highlights Continuing Hostilities
Only hours after the agreement was signed, violence resumed when an Israeli drone struck the town of Nabatieh al-Fawqa in southern Lebanon.
Lebanon’s state news agency reported that the strike occurred outside the security zone identified by Israel as the area where its forces would continue operating under the new arrangement.
The Israeli military confirmed carrying out the operation, explaining that a drone was used because Israeli ground troops were not deployed in the immediate vicinity.
Military officials stated that the strike targeted an individual they believed posed an immediate threat to Israeli forces. However, Israeli authorities did not publicly identify the individual or provide evidence supporting the claim.
The incident has raised fresh concerns that military operations could continue despite diplomatic efforts to establish a more stable security environment along the Israel-Lebanon border.
Humanitarian Impact Remains Severe
The conflict between Israel and Hezbollah has displaced more than one million Lebanese residents, creating one of the country’s largest humanitarian crises in recent history.
Entire communities in southern Lebanon have been forced to flee repeated airstrikes, artillery exchanges, and cross-border attacks, while infrastructure damage has complicated efforts to provide aid and restore normal life.
Although international mediators have repeatedly sought to negotiate ceasefires, periods of calm have often been interrupted by renewed violence, leaving civilians caught between continuing military operations.
Hezbollah Points to Earlier Iran-U.S. Memorandum
Qassem argued that an earlier memorandum of understanding reached between Iran and the United States earlier this month should serve as the primary basis for ending hostilities in Lebanon rather than the newly negotiated Washington agreement.
According to Hezbollah and Iranian officials, Washington had previously pledged that any broader regional agreement would include guarantees protecting Lebanon’s territorial integrity and contribute to ending military operations there.
Qassem maintained that the earlier memorandum provides stronger protections for Lebanon and accused negotiators behind Friday’s agreement of disregarding those commitments.
Iran has likewise argued that the broader understanding reached during negotiations to end the regional conflict included provisions intended to reduce hostilities involving Hezbollah and prevent further violations of Lebanese sovereignty.
Uncertain Path Ahead
The conflicting interpretations of the various agreements have created additional uncertainty about whether the latest diplomatic initiative can succeed.
While Lebanon’s government and international mediators view the new framework as an important step toward reducing violence and restoring stability, Hezbollah has made clear that it does not consider itself bound by its terms.
The combination of Hezbollah’s rejection of the agreement, Israel’s continued military operations, and lingering disputes over security arrangements suggests that southern Lebanon is likely to remain a volatile flashpoint, despite ongoing international efforts to prevent another full-scale conflict.
Original article
Comments