A framework agreement signed by Lebanon and Israel in Washington on 26 June aims to end decades of formal belligerency, but its first days have been marked by fresh Israeli strikes on southern Lebanon and a categorical rejection by Hezbollah’s leadership. Lebanese state media reported Israeli airstrikes on the outskirts of Deir Siryan and Taybeh on 28 June, while other reports detailed the detonation of explosives in the town of Khiam and the burning of residential homes. The Israeli military confirmed it had struck Hezbollah operatives in the Nabatieh area and dismantled a rocket launcher, insisting it would continue operations in its self-declared “security zone”. One Israeli soldier was reported killed in southern Lebanon.

Under the deal’s terms, disclosed by the US State Department, Israel commits to a phased withdrawal from Lebanese territory, beginning with two pilot zones in the south. In return, the Lebanese Armed Forces are to deploy and “restore effective sovereign authority”, including the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups – a direct reference to Hezbollah. A monitoring mechanism under US Central Command is to document violations. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the accord as “historic” but stressed that Israeli troops would remain “until Hezbollah and the rest of the terrorist organisations are disarmed”. Defence Minister Israel Katz has ordered the military to prepare for an extended stay. Viewed from Beirut, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun told his US counterpart that the state would “assume its responsibilities”, and the Lebanese embassy in Washington said implementation would start with an Israeli pullback from two pilot areas.

Hezbollah’s rejection was swift and absolute. Leader Naim Qassem called the deal “null and void”, “a humiliation” and a “surrender of sovereignty”, adding that linking Israel’s withdrawal to the group’s disarmament crossed all “red lines”. MP Hassan Fadlallah warned that what “the authorities have done amounts to sedition aimed at pushing the country into chaos and shifting the conflict... to an internal conflict”. Tehran’s position, as articulated by Iranian parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, is that any end to the war must include an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory; Hezbollah has sought to tether Lebanon’s negotiations to the US-Iran memorandum of understanding. Far-right Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir denounced the deal as a “big mistake”, arguing that the Lebanese government could not be trusted to disarm Hezbollah.

The conceptual architecture of the agreement confronts a reality on the ground shaped by Israel’s evolving security doctrine. Israeli commentary describes a policy of buffer zones: civilians have been moved away from the border area, villages razed, and a depopulated strip created to push threats further north. The challenge, analysts note, is that stationary defensive lines risk complacency, a lesson drawn from the October 2023 attack. While the pilot zones are meant to test whether the Lebanese Army can move against Hezbollah, scepticism persists – the 2024 ceasefire was never fully implemented. France has signalled readiness to contribute to the deal’s execution, and the US monitoring role is designed to create a record of compliance or its absence. As the dossier stands, the initial withdrawal from two pilot areas was expected to begin as early as 28 June, with CENTCOM Commander General Brad Cooper travelling to northern Israel to observe the process. The coming weeks will indicate whether the paper framework can translate into a durable shift on a frontier scarred by decades of war.