Will this agreement succeed? Or will it suffer the same fate as the May 1983 Accord that followed the 1982 Israeli invasion to get rid of Yasser Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO)? Back then, after nearly a year of difficult negotiations, the May 1983 Accord was never signed or ratified and now one really knows why, although there are a number of explanations and speculations.
Most of the latter seem to point to three salient possibilities:
1- When faced with his obligation to sign the agreement that his own government negotiated, the Lebanese President at the time, Amin Gemayel, became reluctant to be the second (after Egypt in 1979) Arab country to sign peace with Israel. From very close and well informed sources, Lebanon Iznogood has learned that Gemayel justified his refusal to sign the May 1983 Accord by saying he "didn't want to close 20 [Arab] doors to open one [Israeli] door". In other words, he feared a massive boycott of Lebanon by the Arab countries.
2- Amin's brother, Bashir, had been assassinated by the Syrian occupation army in September 1982 just weeks after his election to the presidency, and after indicating he would seek a peace treaty with Israel. Amin might have feared for his life if he signed the Accord, and balked at the idea. Anwar Sadat of Egypt signed peace with Israel in 1979 and was also assassinated. In sum, Amin might have feared for his life. He refused to sign at the last minute even though Parliament had ratified it.
3- Some suggest, perhaps in defense of President Gemayel, that it was the US that instructed Gemayel not to sign because, as has been the case throughout the past six decades of Lebanon's torment in the Israeli-Arab conflict, the US always gave priority to its relations with the Arab world (and its sword of Damocles oil embargo threat over the West) over Lebanon. Indeed, the US sponsored the Syrian dictatorship's takeover of Lebanon between 1974 and 2005, when it finally relented and demanded that Syria end its occupation of Lebanon in the aftermath of 9-11 and the invasion of Iraq.
Up until then, the US considered Syria like an avatar of the Arab world at large, and in order to appease the Arabs and Muslims, the US always favored Syria's interests in Lebanon, sacrificing the small country's welfare in the process. It may well be that the US back in 1983 also concurred that peace between Lebanon and Israel was too "early" and that the May 1983 Accord would be a slap in the face of the Arab world, especially that the US was not addressing the question of Palestine appropriately.
The failure of ratifying and implementing the May 1983 Accord resulted in the fall of Amin Gemayel's government, the reinvigoration of Syria's dominion over Lebanon, the gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces, the inability of Parliament to elect a successor for Amin Gemayel in 1988, and the completion of Syria's takeover of Lebanon through the 1989-1990 Taig Agreement - all of which were sponsored by the US and Saudi Arabia.
Right now, President Joseph Aoun is faced with the same dilemma, except that there has been a tectonic shift in the Arab world's relations with Israel. Most Arab countries have essentially abandoned and betrayed Palestine and are on their way to "normalizing" with Israel, and whereas Israelis used to say that liberal, democratic and Christian-led Lebanon would be the first Arab country to sign peace with Israel, Lebanon might well be the last to do so now.
But also right now, Hezbollah and Iran see the wind in their sails as they consider that not losing to the US and Israel means that they won. Hezbollah is not a signatory to the Framework Agreement and has not participated in the negotiations, which does not augur well for its successful implementation. The virulence of Hezbollah's reaction over the past 24 hours since the signing of the agreement is unprecedented, accusing the government of President Aoun and PM Salam of treason and submission to the US-Israeli expansionist plan in the south of the country.
Lebanon Iznogood predicts difficult moments ahead in Lebanon, including potential assassinations, riots, clashes with the Lebanese Army, and an insurrection bordering on civil war by Hezbollah against the Lebanese government, leading perhaps even to a takeover of the state. This way Iran will acquire a new territory and a substitute beachhead on the Mediterranean (which it lost with the fall of the Assad regime in Syria), and will no longer be operating via its proxy Hezbollah but would be directly in charge of operations in Lebanon right along the Israeli border.
Of note and particular concern is that if the agreement fails and Hezbollah's ascendancy grows in Lebanon, the presumed "temporary" presence of Israel in the south of the country might become a permanent one, leading to the eventual Israeli annexation of that part of Lebanese territory (south of the Litani River) just as Israel has done with the Syrian Golan Heights.
Here are the details of the "Framework Agreement" signed yesterday June 26, 2026, by Lebanon and Israel in Washington DC:
The trilateral (US, Lebanon, Israel) agreement consists of 14-points. The agreement aims to end the state of war, ensure sovereignty and security for both nations, and establish peaceful neighborly relations.
The core mechanism of the deal is a reciprocal, sequenced process: the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) will restore effective sovereign authority over all Lebanese territory pending the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups (specifically Hezbollah) and dismantlement of their infrastructure. In exchange, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will progressively redeploy out of Lebanese territory.
Key provisions include:
Pilot Zones: Two initial areas (one south and one north of the Litani River) will serve as pilot zones for phased IDF withdrawal and LAF deployment, with future zones to be agreed upon by mutual consent.
Sovereignty and Disarmament: Lebanon commits to rebuilding its monopoly on the use of force and ensuring no non-state groups have military capabilities anywhere in the country, requesting support from international and Arab partners.
Security Arrangements: Israel declares it has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon and that its military actions were solely in response to threats from non-state actors; termination of this threat will eliminate the need for future IDF presence.
Reconstruction and Aid: The United States will mobilize international partners for substantial reconstruction and humanitarian assistance, with future U.S. aid conditioned on verified milestones.
Next Steps: The parties will establish working groups to draft a comprehensive peace and security agreement and a Security Annex detailing verification mechanisms, while maintaining a military coordination group with U.S. support.
Note that Hezbollah is not a signatory to this agreement, and its reaction to the deal remains a critical factor in its implementation.
The specific disarmament verification mechanisms are not fully detailed in the public text of the June 26, 2026 framework agreement itself; instead, the agreement mandates that these mechanisms will be defined in a forthcoming Security Annex.
However, the framework and associated statements outline the following key components of the verification process:
1. The Security Annex
The primary mechanism for verification is a Security Annex to be developed immediately by working groups with full United States support. This annex will complement the framework by detailing:
Specific security arrangements.
Precise verification mechanisms to confirm the disarmament of non-state armed groups (specifically Hezbollah) and the dismantlement of their infrastructure.
The steps required to advance the reciprocal process of Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) deployment and Israel Defense Forces (IDF) redeployment.
2. Pilot Zones as Verification Mechanisms
The agreement establishes a phased verification process using pilot zones:
Initial Zones: Two specific areas (one south and one north of the Litani River) have been agreed upon as initial pilot zones.
Process: In these zones, the LAF will gradually assume security responsibility. The verification of disarmament in these specific zones is the trigger for:
Phased IDF redeployment from those specific areas.
The start of internationally supported reconstruction.
The safe return of Lebanese civilians.
Expansion: Future pilot zones will be agreed upon by mutual consent only after successful verification in previous zones.
The agreement establishes a phased verification process using pilot zones:
Initial Zones: Two specific areas (one south and one north of the Litani River) have been agreed upon as initial pilot zones.
Process: In these zones, the LAF will gradually assume security responsibility. The verification of disarmament in these specific zones is the trigger for:
Phased IDF redeployment from those specific areas.
The start of internationally supported reconstruction.
The safe return of Lebanese civilians.
Expansion: Future pilot zones will be agreed upon by mutual consent only after successful verification in previous zones.
3. U.S. Verification and Oversight
The United States plays a central role in the verification architecture:
Direct Verification: The U.S. explicitly intends to "work closely with both countries to verify and support this process."
Military Coordination Group: A trilateral Military Coordination Group (including the U.S., Israel, and Lebanon) will be established to ensure overall implementation and likely oversee day-to-day verification activities.
Conditionality: Future U.S. assistance and reconstruction aid are strictly conditioned on verifiable milestones, full transparency, and demonstrated results monitored by the U.S.
4. Performance-Based Metrics
The verification is tied to a performance-based program for the LAF. The U.S. and international partners will monitor:
The complete and verified disarmament of all non-state armed groups.
The dismantlement of associated infrastructure (e.g., tunnels, weapons depots).
The LAF's ability to exercise exclusive sovereign authority and a monopoly on the use of force in the cleared areas.
The Framework Agreement does not establish a fixed calendar timeline for the Israeli withdrawal. Instead, it mandates a conditional, performance-based schedule tied strictly to security benchmarks.
The verification is tied to a performance-based program for the LAF. The U.S. and international partners will monitor:
The complete and verified disarmament of all non-state armed groups.
The dismantlement of associated infrastructure (e.g., tunnels, weapons depots).
The LAF's ability to exercise exclusive sovereign authority and a monopoly on the use of force in the cleared areas.
The Framework Agreement does not establish a fixed calendar timeline for the Israeli withdrawal. Instead, it mandates a conditional, performance-based schedule tied strictly to security benchmarks.
Withdrawal Mechanism: "Move-for-Move"
The withdrawal follows a reciprocal, sequenced process rather than a set date. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will only "progressively redeploy" as the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) demonstrates the capacity to maintain security.
No Fixed Timetable: Israeli Ambassador Yechiel Leiter explicitly stated that the deal is not based on a fixed timetable but on "measurable progress" by the Lebanese army in disarming Hezbollah and dismantling its infrastructure.
Condition Precedent: Full Israeli withdrawal is contingent upon the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups and the removal of the threat to Israel. Until these conditions are met, Israel retains the right to maintain its security zone in southern Lebanon.
The withdrawal follows a reciprocal, sequenced process rather than a set date. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will only "progressively redeploy" as the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) demonstrates the capacity to maintain security.
No Fixed Timetable: Israeli Ambassador Yechiel Leiter explicitly stated that the deal is not based on a fixed timetable but on "measurable progress" by the Lebanese army in disarming Hezbollah and dismantling its infrastructure.
Condition Precedent: Full Israeli withdrawal is contingent upon the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups and the removal of the threat to Israel. Until these conditions are met, Israel retains the right to maintain its security zone in southern Lebanon.
Phased Implementation via Pilot Zones
The timeline is structured around the successful handover of specific geographic areas:
Initial Pilot Zones: The process begins with two designated "pilot zones" (one north and one south of the Litani River).
Verification Phase: In these zones, the LAF must assume full security responsibility while international monitors verify the absence of Hezbollah weapons and infrastructure.
Expansion: Only upon confirmation of successful disarmament in the initial zones will additional areas be opened for handover. As Ambassador Leiter noted, "Additional 'pilot' handovers... will take place as benchmarks are met."
The timeline is structured around the successful handover of specific geographic areas:
Initial Pilot Zones: The process begins with two designated "pilot zones" (one north and one south of the Litani River).
Verification Phase: In these zones, the LAF must assume full security responsibility while international monitors verify the absence of Hezbollah weapons and infrastructure.
Expansion: Only upon confirmation of successful disarmament in the initial zones will additional areas be opened for handover. As Ambassador Leiter noted, "Additional 'pilot' handovers... will take place as benchmarks are met."
Immediate Next Steps
Military Coordination: A U.S.-facilitated Military Coordination Group for Lebanon (MCG4L) has been established to oversee the implementation and verify benchmarks.
Reconstruction Link: International reconstruction efforts and significant aid are also conditioned on these security milestones, meaning financial support flows in parallel with verified LAF deployment.
Military Coordination: A U.S.-facilitated Military Coordination Group for Lebanon (MCG4L) has been established to oversee the implementation and verify benchmarks.
Reconstruction Link: International reconstruction efforts and significant aid are also conditioned on these security milestones, meaning financial support flows in parallel with verified LAF deployment.
No comments:
Post a Comment