Lebanon and Israel signed a US-brokered agreement on Friday to end hostilities between Israel and Iran-backed Hezbollah – a deal that sparked a mixed reaction in Lebanon.
The framework agreement was welcomed internationally as a first step to “long-lasting peace”, while others, including Hezbollah, criticised it for failing to end the occupation of south Lebanon and paving the way to normalisation of ties between the two countries.
What is in the deal, and why has it divided opinion in Lebanon?
What is in the deal?
The agreement states that both countries will “affirm the right of each state to exist in peace”.
Israel will not withdraw from all the regions it is occupying, but it has agreed to pull out from two pilot zones. The Lebanese Armed Forces will gradually take control of the zones as the Israeli army withdraws once the disarmament of non-state groups is confirmed.
The framework aims to make “irreversible progress” towards resolving issues between Israel and Lebanon and addressing the “underlying causes” of disagreements.
Does the deal amount to normalisation?
The word normalisation is not used in the agreement, but opponents of the deal see this as a first step. Lebanese officials who worked on the agreement insist it remains a narrowly defined security arrangement aimed at stabilising the border and reinforcing state sovereignty.
It is framed around phased Israeli withdrawals, disarmament in designated zones and US-led verification mechanisms, rather than political recognition or the establishment of diplomatic relations. However, the establishment of co-ordination channels and mutual commitments to refrain from hostilities are seen by critics as a first step towards normalisation, a leap far beyond a simple ceasefire agreement.
Lebanon has been technically at war with Israel since the latter's creation in 1948 and does not officially recognise Israel as a state.
“The mere fact that Lebanon agreed to have direct negotiations with Israel means Lebanon agrees to recognise it as a state,” argues Makram Rabah, professor of Lebanese history at the American University of Beirut,
“It’s a step in the right direction, but it doesn't really achieve anything,” he told The National.
Will it end Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon?
The agreement does not clearly state that Israeli forces have to leave the areas they occupy in the south, but says they will “progressively redeploy out of the Lebanese territory”.
It also states that the Lebanese army will “restore effective sovereign authority over all Lebanese territory” once non-state groups have been disarmed.
Israeli politicians have repeatedly said they do not plan to withdraw from southern Lebanon. Hezbollah has said many times that it refuses to disarm as long as Israel continues to occupy parts of Lebanon and poses a threat to the country.
“There will not be any withdrawal of Israeli troops as long as Hezbollah has its arms,” says Mr Rabah.
How will progress be monitored?
The US will form a Military Co-ordination Group whose role is to bring together Lebanese and Israeli military representatives under American supervision to monitor compliance, assess security conditions, and resolve disputes over alleged violations.
At the centre of the process is a phased approach linking Israeli withdrawals to the verified deployment of the Lebanese Armed Forces and the disarmament of non-state armed groups in two designated pilot zones. These zones are meant to serve as testing grounds before any wider roll-out across southern Lebanon.
However, key technical criteria for what constitutes “verification” remain largely undisclosed, leaving significant room for interpretation by the parties involved. The security annexe to the deal, where these points are detailed, has not been made public.
Both countries have the right to defend themselves. What does this entail?
Israel's right to defend itself was put forward by its supporters after the October 7, 2023 attacks and has been repeated since by many countries.
In the previous ceasefire agreement signed in November 2025, Israel stated that it would “preserve its right to take all necessary measures in self-defence, at any time, against planned, imminent, or ongoing attacks. This shall not be impeded by the cessation of hostilities”. Attacks on Lebanese soil and airspace violations have occurred almost daily.
But for Mr Rabah, attacks are most likely to be concentrated in the south. “We are almost certain that future strikes will not include Beirut. However, any operations south of the Litani will not be stopped any time soon.”
The agreement “does not treat Lebanon just as a security problem but as a state that needs to regain sovereignty”, Mr Rabah said. “The Americans and, ironically, the Israelis are doing their best to get there.”
How was the agreement received in Lebanon?
Hezbollah supporters took to the streets on Friday evening, waving flags and shouting anti-government slogans. They accused the government of handing over the south to Israel.
Hezbollah's secretary general, Naim Qassem, said the agreement was “humiliating, shameful and a surrender of sovereignty” in a televised address on Saturday. He added that it was “null and void” and that the group would not abandon armed resistance.
Samy Gemayel, head of the Kataeb party, was one of the few politicians who publicly reacted to the signing. He congratulated President Joseph Aoun, saying that the agreement's importance “lies in the fact that it enshrines Lebanon's right to live in peace and sets a path toward achieving this goal”. Mr Gemayel added that “Lebanon has won in this agreement”.
Samir Geagea, president of the Lebanese Forces, a Christian opposition party, had previously criticised the agreement, saying that it “guarantees neither the disarmament of Hezbollah, nor an Israeli withdrawal, nor the prospect of building a state”.
Gebran Bassil, head of the Patriotic Movement of former president Michel Aoun, said on X that the agreement “is beneficial if we regain all our rights, and dangerous if it is a recipe for strife,” adding that the agreement requires “responsible engagement”.
Major Sunni leaders in Lebanon have not yet reacted to the deal, nor has the Amal Movement, part of the Shia bloc led by Parliamentary Speaker Nabih Berri.
