By Elsie Kamsiyochi
A newly signed framework agreement between Israel and Lebanon, hailed by both Washington and Israeli officials as a potential breakthrough, is already facing intense criticism from regional analysts and political leaders who argue that it is more likely to deepen the long-running conflict than bring lasting peace.
The agreement, signed in Washington on June 26, is designed to establish a pathway toward ending hostilities between Israel and Lebanon following months of fighting linked to the broader regional conflict involving Iran. Under the deal, Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon is tied directly to the disarmament of Hezbollah, the powerful Iran-backed armed group that has maintained a significant military presence in the country for decades.
While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has described the agreement as a historic diplomatic achievement that could eventually lead to wider regional peace, many experts believe the framework is based on conditions that are nearly impossible to fulfill.
At the heart of the criticism is the requirement that Hezbollah surrender its weapons before Israel fully withdraws from southern Lebanon. Hezbollah has repeatedly rejected any calls for disarmament, insisting that its weapons remain necessary to defend Lebanon against Israeli attacks. At the same time, Lebanon’s government and military are widely viewed as lacking both the political authority and military capability to force Hezbollah to disarm without risking serious internal unrest.
Analysts argue that this creates a political deadlock. If Hezbollah refuses to disarm, Israel can maintain that the conditions of the agreement have not been met and continue its military presence in southern Lebanon indefinitely. As a result, critics fear the deal may institutionalize the current stalemate instead of resolving it.
The framework also places enormous pressure on Lebanon’s already fragile political system. The country’s sectarian power-sharing arrangement, established after its civil war, was designed to balance competing religious and political factions rather than allow the state to confront one of its most powerful armed groups.
A senior Lebanese politician, speaking anonymously, described the agreement as an imposed settlement rather than a genuine peace accord. According to the official, expecting the Lebanese Armed Forces to dismantle Hezbollah ignores the group’s deeply rooted military capabilities and the delicate political balance that has helped prevent another civil war.
Political analyst Michael Young said the agreement places nearly all of the responsibility on Lebanon while offering no firm guarantee that Israel will eventually leave occupied territory. In his view, the framework could provide Israel with diplomatic justification to remain in southern Lebanon for an extended period.
Fawaz Gerges, a Middle East expert at the London School of Economics, was even more critical, describing the agreement as “born dead.” He argued that the central condition of Hezbollah’s disarmament is unrealistic under current circumstances and warned that Israel has already established what amounts to a buffer zone inside southern Lebanon. Linking any future withdrawal to Hezbollah’s disarmament could effectively transform that temporary security zone into a permanent reality.
The agreement comes as international efforts continue to stabilize the Middle East following the recent U.S.-Iran conflict. Diplomats have viewed the situation in Lebanon as an important part of broader regional negotiations. However, some analysts believe the United States has deliberately separated the Lebanon issue from wider negotiations with Iran, giving Israel greater freedom to shape events along its northern border.
Despite the criticism, Israeli officials insist the agreement represents an important diplomatic step. Israeli leaders argue that northern communities displaced by Hezbollah attacks cannot safely return home while the group remains heavily armed. Officials have also expressed skepticism that Lebanon can successfully disarm Hezbollah but believe the agreement establishes a framework that could eventually improve long-term security.
The human cost of the conflict has been severe. Israel’s military campaign against Hezbollah has reportedly killed around 4,000 people in Lebanon and forced roughly one million residents to flee their homes, creating one of the country’s largest displacement crises in recent years.
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun welcomed the agreement as an initial step toward restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty and expressed hope that it would eventually allow citizens to return safely to fully liberated territory.
However, several influential Lebanese figures have rejected the deal outright. Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri criticized it as an agreement imposed on Lebanon rather than one that protects the country’s rights. Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem dismissed the framework as “null and void,” calling it a surrender that his movement would never accept. He vowed that Hezbollah would continue resisting until Israeli forces completely withdraw from Lebanese territory.
Hezbollah lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah also warned that any attempt by the Lebanese state to forcibly disarm the group could trigger dangerous internal divisions. Many observers share these concerns, fearing that such a move could reignite sectarian tensions and potentially push Lebanon toward another period of civil conflict.
Former Israeli military intelligence officer Danny Citrinowicz echoed doubts about the agreement’s practicality. He argued that Hezbollah is unlikely to dismantle its military capabilities, while Israeli leaders face strong domestic pressure not to withdraw as long as Hezbollah remains armed. According to his assessment, neither side is likely to fulfill the agreement’s central conditions, leaving implementation effectively stalled.
Some experts suggest that a narrower agreement focused on pushing Hezbollah forces north of the Litani River, expanding the deployment of the Lebanese Army, and strengthening state authority in southern Lebanon would have been far more achievable than demanding Hezbollah’s complete disarmament.
As both governments defend the agreement and critics question its feasibility, the future of the Israel-Lebanon framework remains uncertain. Rather than ending one of the Middle East’s most persistent security crises, many analysts fear the deal could simply freeze the conflict in place, leaving southern Lebanon under prolonged military tension while increasing the risk of future violence and political instability.
Source Reuters