Diplomats and Lebanese officials from across the political spectrum have quietly acknowledged the mammoth obstacles facing the new Israel-Lebanon peace framework – with one Western diplomat privately dismissing it as a “non-starter”.
“Already, alternatives will have to be considered. For us it seems the idea is not working and there’s no real movement from the Israelis,” the Western diplomat told The National.
The framework deal to disarm Hezbollah and secure an Israeli withdrawal from south Lebanon was signed in Washington last week and publicly hailed as constructive. But it has been widely panned by Lebanon’s Western diplomatic corps behind the scenes.
Concerns include the deal's uncertain legal standing, the lack of any timetable for Israel to pull back its troops, and the possibility that the US and Iran will negotiate different terms relating to Lebanon.
Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun has beseeched politicians to “await the results of these negotiations before passing judgment” on what he said was the best possible outcome achieved under immense military and political pressure.
But the proposal has also faced local backlash and legal controversies, raising risks it could collapse before its implementation. Lebanese parliament Speaker Nabih Berri has promised it will “not pass”, condemning it as “an agreement of 'dictates', not an agreement that preserves Lebanon's rights”.
Murky legal status
The leaked minutes of a cabinet meeting on June 25 – one day before the framework was signed – show Lebanon’s negotiating team in Washington was empowered to take necessary measures to achieve an agreement. However, it also said that any agreement “will be subject to the approval of the council of ministers.”
The constitutional Catch-22: The framework is not yet an agreement or treaty and “therefore cannot be formally presented and ratified by the constitutional institutions,” Information Minister Paul Morcos explained to The National. He added that further negotiations were still in their early stages, including attempts to establish a timetable for Israel’s withdrawal.
Lebanon’s cabinet was briefed on the form and content of the framework in a session on Thursday, where fierce objections were raised by those opposed to it, ministerial sources told The National – namely pro-Hezbollah ministers and allies.
Prime Minister Nawaf Salam “explained that this is a political framework, a roadmap for negotiations, which will result in political – not legal – commitments”, Mr Morcos said.
This interpretation has sparked controversy. According to Lebanon's constitution, the agreement “needs to be accepted by the council of ministers to become legal”, said lawyer Wissam el Laham from Legal Agenda, a group critical of the deal.
Lebanese political sources described the framework as sub-optimal and murky, saying it was accepted under US pressure as Israeli troops expanded their invasion.
It provides that the Lebanese state should establish “pilot zones” where the army will assert control and disarm Hezbollah before Israel withdraws. Negotiations will happen while these pilot zones are being implemented, ministerial sources said.
Hezbollah rejects the framework, describing it as a surrender to Israel. The Iran-backed group’s leader, Naim Qassem, accused the Lebanese government of making unilateral concessions. Hezbollah is not party to the negotiations with Israel, despite being the main belligerent against it.
Israel currently occupies roughly seven per cent of Lebanon and has razed most villages within the occupied area as part of what it describes as a “security zone”.
No timetable
Opponents of the deal have criticised the lack of a clear timetable for ending Israel's occupation, contrasting it with the emphasis placed on the rapid disarmament of Hezbollah.
Under the agreement, Israel would first withdraw from two pilot zones, which have yet to be agreed upon, conditional on “the successful disarmament of non-state armed groups and dismantlement of their infrastructure.” The withdrawal could then be gradually extended to additional areas.
This is the best-case scenario – if the pilot zones are ever implemented. But Israel “has a track record of not respecting agreements”, a second Western diplomat said.
Critics argue that this could pave the way for an open-ended Israeli military presence in Lebanon, preventing hundreds of thousands of people from returning home.
Meanwhile, Israeli officials have already made it clear that they have no intention of withdrawing any time soon, with Israeli media reporting it could take a few weeks for the process to start, even though it involves only two locations.
Rights groups including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have described Israel’s conditional withdrawal as a breach of international law.
“Under international humanitarian law, people must be allowed to return once hostilities have ended or the reasons for their displacement cease to exist,” they said in a statement released on Friday.
Additionally, the framework is “foggy and unclear”, according to MP Melhem Khalaf. “And lacking in consequences. What happens if one of the parties does not abide by its commitments?”
“If these commitments are to have any meaning, they must be clear, structured, and have an implementation dimension. This framework does not contain that,” he added. “There is a deliberate ambiguity.”
US-Iran talks
Western diplomatic sources told The National that the framework agreement is likely to be a stillborn deal amid broader regional considerations, including Iran's push to fold Lebanon into its own negotiations with the US.
Hezbollah has pressed for the country to join the regional negotiations between Iran and the US to end the wider war. And Iran has repeated that the fate of the Lebanese front was tied to its own, and succeeded in including Lebanon in the broader talks with the US.
Defenders of the deal, including the US-backed President Aoun, said it curbed Iranian influence in Lebanon and affirmed Lebanese sovereignty – despite the country having little leverage and being under incredible US pressure.
But “Iran has not given up. Lebanon remains part of those broader negotiations,” the second Western diplomatic source said. This could ultimately supersede the direct talks and render the Lebanon-Israel framework obsolete. “There is this parallel track that will ultimately shape a US-Iran understanding regarding Lebanon,” he said.
The deal will “either simply stall until everyone stops talking about it, or something else will emerge”, he added.
Overall, he conceded that the deal was one of “concessions” to Israel from Lebanon, which effectively lost a war it never chose to start.
