How is framework agreement with Lebanon viewed in Israel?

US brokers Israel–Lebanon framework deal in early step toward easing border tensions

The announcement of a framework agreement between Israel and Lebanon after negotiations in the United States has been met with guarded optimism in Israel.

Friday’s agreement describes a “sequenced process” that will see the Lebanese army restore “effective sovereign authority over all Lebanese territory, pending the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups” – a clear reference to Hezbollah, which has been fighting with Israel since October 2023, with varying levels of intensity.

Only once that process is completed, will Israeli forces be able to “progressively redeploy” out of the large area of southern Lebanon they have occupied since early March, when they launched a renewed offensive that has killed more than 4,000 people.

The Washington framework does not specify what measures will be used to verify disarmament but outlines two “pilot zones” for an initial Israeli withdrawal, where the Lebanese military “will gradually assume full and effective security responsibility”.

Yossi Mekelberg, a senior consulting fellow at Chatham House, said “only time and its implementation will determine” whether this is “a real agreement or just something signed” to appease the US, Israel’s principal backer and a signatory to Friday’s agreement.

Last week, Washington and Tehran signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) to end the war launched by the US and Israel against Iran in late February that was conditional upon Israel halting its campaign in Lebanon and agreeing to respect the “territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon”.

“Could an Israeli government really withdraw entirely from Lebanon and then face the electorate? We don’t know,” said Mekelberg. “Equally, can a Lebanese government ever really deal with Hezbollah, whose problem it really is? It seems unlikely.”

As widely expected, Hezbollah rejected the framework outright. In a statement on Saturday, the group’s Secretary-General Naim Qassem called the Washington agreement “null and void” and insisted that the Iran-US MoU ‌‌should be the basis for ending the conflict. He also warned against linking Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon to Hezbollah’s disarmament, saying that crossed “all red lines”.

But how have Israeli politicians reacted to the framework, and how likely is it that it will be implemented?

Shortly after the framework’s announcement, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a video statement in which he attempted to sell the agreement to a public that polls show to be reluctant to halt the offensive against Hezbollah.

Describing the agreement as a major blow to Hezbollah’s ally and the country he has historically cast as Israel’s nemesis, Iran, Netanyahu assured the public – particularly citizens of northern Israel who have been most vulnerable to Hezbollah fire – that Israel would maintain its “buffer zone” within Lebanese territory until Hezbollah was disarmed.

“Iran is trying to coax us to withdraw from southern Lebanon by force,” he said.

“And in essence, Israel, Lebanon and the United States are telling Iran – it is none of your business. You have no role in Lebanon. Neither you, nor Hezbollah,” he added.

Israeli opposition leader, Yair Lapid, criticised the framework, saying its terms allowed for Iran to continue to funnel funds to the group, while at the same time hoping to push it back in Lebanon.

Comments from other politicians have echoed longstanding criticisms of Israeli policy towards Hezbollah suggesting that it seeks to manage rather than remove the threat posed by the group. Writing on X, former Deputy Prime Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that “as long as Hezbollah exists and grows stronger every day, the next confrontation is only a matter of time despite the agreement”.

Other leaders have been critical of the degree to which Israel has ceded control over its war on Hezbollah to its allies in the US. Speaking to a Hebrew language podcast earlier this week before the signing of the framework, Gadi Eisenkot, a former chief of staff and currently the man regarded as Netanyahu’s principal challenger, said: “We failed to capitalise on our military achievements and woke up to a security reality that must not be allowed”.

Local leaders in northern Israel, which is typically the area most exposed to Hezbollah attacks, greeted news of the agreement with cautious optimism.

David Azoulay, head of Metula Regional Council, close to the Lebanese border, welcomed the deal but stressed that any Israeli withdrawal must remain conditional and carefully managed by both the Israeli army and political leadership.

“Without the disarmament of Hezbollah, there is no full withdrawal,” he said. “Without the disarmament of the terrorist organisation, there are no agreements.”

Eyal Shmueli, head of the council for the small town of Kfar Vradim, about 14km (9 miles) from the Lebanese border, expressed scepticism.  “Experience teaches us that the responsibility that was imposed in the distant and short past on the Lebanese government to act to disarm Hezbollah has not been fulfilled,” he said.

Ahron Bregman, a senior teaching fellow in the Department of War Studies at King’s College London, described the framework as an Israeli-US attempt “to drive a wedge between the Lebanese and Iranian fronts” and to curtail “Iranian influence in Lebanon”.

For now, Bregman said, neither Hezbollah, which still regards itself as the defender of Lebanon in the face of an aggressive Israel, nor its ally Iran, whose confidence had been buoyed by having brought the US to the negotiating table, had any interest in giving up its arms or being dismantled.

This agreement is likely to join 1701 in the growing pile of unsuccessful Israeli-Lebanese deals,” he added, referring to the United Nations resolution that was adopted in 2006 to end a previous war between Israel and Hezbollah.