|
Yesasvi Koganti
3 July 2026 |
In the news
On 21 June, Israel's Defence Minister Israel Katz, confirmed that its forces would remain in the 10 kilometres security zone with full operational freedom, while Hezbollah's chief Niam Qassem vowed to respond to any further Israeli violations. This development follows the ceasefire violations by both sides.
On 24 June, both countries discussed a US-backed "pilot project" for Israel's phased withdrawal. Lebanon and Israel rejected US claims that Israel had begun withdrawing
On 27 June, Israel and Lebanon signed a US-brokered 14-point trilateral framework agreement establishing a conditional roadmap for Israel's redeployment. The agreement linked Israel's withdrawal to verified Hezbollah disarmament, introducing two pilot zones where the Lebanese Army would gradually assume security responsibilities. It also establishes a trilateral Military Coordination Group to oversee implementation. Hezbollah firmly opposed the deal.
On 29 June, Israel continued military operations against Hezbollah targets, arguing they complied with the new framework. Hezbollah condemned the strikes as violations, rejecting the agreement.
On 30 June, PM Netanyahu visited occupied southern Lebanon and declared that Israel's forces would remain in the buffer zone until Hezbollah no longer posed a military threat.
Issues at large
1. A complicated ceasefire roadmap
Constant violations of ceasefires between Israel and Hezbollah with little accountability reinforce a cycle of continued military action despite diplomatic commitments. While diplomatic efforts, mainly led by the US, Qatar, France, and the UN, prevented the outbreak of larger regional wars, they hardly ever clarified the underlying disagreements about Hezbollah’s military role, Israel's security concerns, and Lebanon's territorial control. Instead, each ceasefire has largely served as a temporary mechanism to contain violence, leaving the principal drivers of the conflict unresolved.
2. Competing endgames by Israel, Lebanon and Hezbollah
The Israel-Lebanon conflict is shaped by three actors pursuing fundamentally different strategic objectives. Israel seeks Hezbollah's disarmament to withdraw from southern Lebanon. Israel views the region as a critical buffer that protects its northern communities from cross-border attacks, rocket fire, and militant infiltration. Lebanon prioritises reclaiming territorial control through Israel’s complete withdrawal. Meanwhile, Hezbollah maintains armed resistance as central to Lebanon's defence, arguing its military capabilities remain necessary while Israeli forces occupy territory and continue cross-border operations. These competing endgames leave little room for compromise and make implementing any agreement inherently contentious
3. The inherent challenge in the peace framework
The US-brokered framework aims to address several long-standing disputes through a phased implementation process. However, central provisions are mutually dependent, creating a political and security deadlock from the outset. Israel conditioned its withdrawal from southern Lebanon on the disarmament of Hezbollah and the elimination of security threats. While Lebanon insists that the restoration of territorial control requires Israel’s withdrawal. Hezbollah rejects any process demanding its disarmament, leading to the persisting presence of Israel’s forces in Lebanon. Instead of settling these competing demands ahead of implementation, the framework is integrated into the agreement itself, requiring a need to provide concessions that none of the principal actors are willing to make first.
4. Lebanon's limited state authority continues to constrain the peace process
Lebanon and Hezbollah operate as parallel military centres shaping the Israel-Lebanon conflict. While Beirut represents Lebanon diplomatically, Hezbollah possesses independent command structures, military capabilities, and close ties with Iran. Such decentralised security system has long limited the government's capacity to enforce security commitments and exercise full control over southern Lebanon. As a result, agreements negotiated by Beirut remain subject to actors beyond its authority, making compliance and implementation difficult.
In perspective
First, the framework is unlikely to break the cycle of previous Israel-Lebanon agreements. Like earlier ceasefires and security arrangements, it attempts to reduce violence without resolving the conflict's central political and security disputes. Although negotiated after four rounds of unprecedented direct talks, the deal ultimately depends on Hezbollah's willingness to alter its military footprint, something it has never been willing to do. Centering the agreement on Hezbollah's disarmament, it highlights the limitations of state-to-state diplomacy in conflicts involving powerful non-state actors with independent military capabilities.
Second, the Israel-Lebanon framework is also a product of US-Iran diplomacy. Renewed US mediation focused less on Israel-Lebanon reconciliation and more on Washington's objective of preserving broader engagement with Iran. The US-Iran MoU explicitly linked ending hostilities in Lebanon to a wider regional settlement, with Iran demanding Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanese territory as a condition for peace. This reflects the growing influence of regional negotiations over developments in Israel-Lebanon relations.
Third, lasting peace ultimately depends on the reconciliation of Israel's security concerns and Lebanon's goal of restoring territorial control. While military action and externally brokered agreements temporarily ease tensions, they will only aggravate the fundamental differences between Israel's security demands and Lebanon's territorial claims. As long as both remain dependent on the other's concessions, successive agreements will likely face similar implementation challenges.About the Author:
