Paragraph-by-paragraph analysis of the Israel-Lebanon framework agreement

Subscribe to get access

Read more of this content when you subscribe today.

Preamble — original text

The Government of Israel and the Government of Lebanon, with the full support of the United States under President Donald J. Trump, affirm their shared goal of achieving lasting peace and security. As reflected in this Trilateral Framework (“Framework”), and through future agreements, the two countries declare their ambition to end conflict between them, ensure the sovereignty and security of both countries, and establish peaceful neighbourly relations between the two countries.

Commentary

The preamble presents the framework as a shared pursuit of “lasting peace and security,” but this language hides the imbalance of power between the parties. Israel remains militarily present in Lebanon, while Lebanon is asked to accept obligations concerning internal disarmament, future negotiations and security coordination. The framework begins with the appearance of equality, but the rest of the document shows that the obligations are not equal. Israel keeps discretion; Lebanon receives conditions.

Paragraph 1 — original text

Israel and Lebanon affirm the right of each state to exist in peace, and their mutual desire to live in security as neighbouring sovereign states. Israel and Lebanon hereby declare their intent to conclusively end the conflict, address its underlying causes, and to therewith formally conclude any state of war between them. This Framework, reached after multiple rounds of direct negotiations between the parties, builds upon previous successful agreements and understandings, and expresses a determination to make irreversible progress towards the comprehensive resolution of all issues between the two countries. Both countries affirm their intention to resolve these issues as sovereign states through direct bilateral negotiations, with the mediation and support of the United States.

Commentary

This paragraph is politically explosive because it goes far beyond a technical ceasefire or withdrawal arrangement. It speaks of the right of each state to exist in peace, the intention to “conclusively end the conflict,” and the formal conclusion of any state of war. It also refers to direct bilateral negotiations. In Lebanese law and political doctrine, Israel remains an enemy state. Lebanon has not normalised relations with Israel and has not signed a peace treaty. Therefore, this paragraph opens the door to de facto normalisation without explaining the constitutional, legal or national-consensus basis for doing so. It also presents “direct negotiations” as already established practice, which is highly sensitive in Lebanon and may be seen as a political concession before Israel has withdrawn.

The problem is that the paragraph treats the two states as if they were negotiating from equal positions. They are not. Israel occupies or controls parts of Lebanese territory, continues military operations, and retains overwhelming military power. Lebanon is fragmented, economically weakened and pressured through American mediation. A declaration to end the state of war under these conditions risks resembling the May 17, 1983 Agreement: an arrangement signed under pressure, lacking broad Lebanese legitimacy, and vulnerable to rejection by decisive domestic actors.

Paragraph 2 — original text

The Government of Israel and the Government of Lebanon commit to a reciprocal, sequenced process, with clear conditions, whereby the LAF will restore effective sovereign authority over all Lebanese territory, pending the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups and dismantlement of associated infrastructure, enabling the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to progressively redeploy out of the Lebanese territory. The components of this process will be detailed in a Security Annex, developed with the full support of the United States, that will complement this Framework. The Framework will set out the requisite measures, security arrangements, and verification mechanisms to advance this process. Successful implementation of this Framework will pave the way for a stable and peaceful relationship between the two countries and will enable the IDF to redeploy out of the Lebanese territory.

Commentary

This is one of the most important paragraphs in the framework. It makes Israeli withdrawal conditional on the “verified disarmament” of non-state armed groups and the dismantlement of their infrastructure. In practice, this means that Israel’s redeployment is not an immediate obligation. It becomes a reward granted after Lebanon performs according to security conditions.

The major hole is the absence of a fixed timetable for full Israeli withdrawal. The text does not say that Israel must leave Lebanon within 30, 60 or 90 days. It does not establish an automatic deadline. It does not define what happens if Israel refuses to withdraw. Instead, it says the IDF will “progressively redeploy” once conditions are met. This transforms Lebanese sovereignty into a performance test.

The second problem is the Security Annex. The paragraph says the components of the process will be detailed in an annex developed with US support. This means the public framework is not the real operational agreement. The key obligations, verification mechanisms, rules of deployment, security restrictions and possible Israeli rights of objection may be contained in an unpublished document. If the Lebanese public cannot read the annex, it cannot know what Lebanon has actually accepted.

Paragraph 3 — original text

Pursuant to the Security Annex, and as part of the broader effort toward the Lebanese state’s monopoly of arms and sovereign territorial control, the LAF will gradually assume full and effective security responsibility in pilot zones, which will serve as the mechanism for phased and verified redeployments of the IDF and the deployments of the LAF. Two initial zones have been agreed to by the IDF and the LAF, and future pilot zones will also be agreed upon by mutual consent. Upon the confirmation of successful disarmament of non-state armed groups and dismantlement of their infrastructure in these zones, the LAF will assume full and effective security responsibility in these zones, internationally supported reconstruction efforts will begin, and Lebanese civilians will be able to safely return to these areas under the exclusive control of Lebanese state authorities. The United States intends to work closely with both countries to verify and support this process.

Commentary

This paragraph creates the “pilot zones” mechanism. On the surface, this looks practical: the Lebanese army deploys, Israel withdraws gradually, civilians return and reconstruction begins. But the structure is dangerous because it places the Lebanese army in the role of enforcing security conditions that Israel and the United States will judge.

The first hole is the phrase “upon the confirmation of successful disarmament.” The text does not define who confirms success. Is it the United States? Israel? The LAF? A joint body? UNIFIL? If Israel can contest the confirmation, then Israel keeps a veto over withdrawal.

The second problem is that the pilot zones can become a trap. Israel may withdraw from areas it does not truly need or does not fully control, while keeping strategically important zones. The Lebanese presidency can then claim success, Washington can claim progress, and the Lebanese army is placed under pressure to confront Hezbollah or its environment in those areas. This creates the appearance of sovereignty while shifting the burden of confrontation onto the Lebanese state.

Paragraph 4 — original text

The Government of Lebanon reaffirms its resolute and irreversible commitment to restoring and exercising full sovereignty over all its territory. The Government of Lebanon will rebuild the State’s monopoly on the use of force, achieve the complete and verified disarmament of all non-state armed groups, and ensure that such groups will have no military or security role and no armed capabilities anywhere in Lebanon. The Government of Lebanon herewith requests the support of international and particularly Arab partners, under the leadership of the United States, to achieve this outcome.

Commentary

This paragraph imposes the heaviest obligation on Lebanon. It commits the Lebanese government to rebuilding the state’s monopoly on the use of force, achieving the complete and verified disarmament of all non-state armed groups, and ensuring that such groups have no military or security role anywhere in Lebanon.

The problem is not the principle of state sovereignty. In theory, every state seeks a monopoly on legitimate force. The problem is that this paragraph treats Hezbollah’s disarmament as an administrative task that the Lebanese government can simply implement. It ignores Lebanon’s sectarian political structure, Hezbollah’s social base, the Shia community’s capacity to refuse, the weakness of the state, and the fact that Hezbollah’s weapons are tied to the unresolved conflict with Israel.

The wording “all non-state armed groups” is also broad. It may include Hezbollah, Palestinian factions and any armed or security-linked network. It may later be expanded to target organisations, charities, municipalities, contractors or individuals accused of affiliation. This creates the basis for a political, financial and security campaign under the language of restoring sovereignty.

Paragraph 5 — original text

The Government of Israel stresses that its military actions in Lebanon are solely a consequence of the attacks, threat posed by, and hostile intent of non-state armed groups, particularly Hizballah. The Government of Israel underscores that the termination of this threat, through the disarmament and dismantlement of such groups in all of Lebanon and additional security arrangements to be agreed upon between the two countries, will eliminate any future need for IDF military action or presence in Lebanon. Pursuant to the above, the Government of Israel declares that it has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon.

Commentary

This paragraph gives Israel the central loophole it needs. Israel states that its military actions in Lebanon are only a consequence of attacks, threats and hostile intent by non-state armed groups, particularly Hezbollah. It then says that the termination of this threat through disarmament and additional security arrangements will eliminate the future need for Israeli military action or presence.

This means Israel reserves the right to decide whether the threat has ended. As long as Israel claims Hezbollah retains weapons, infrastructure, hostile intent or reconstitution capacity, Israel can argue that its presence or military action remains necessary. The declaration that Israel has “no territorial ambitions” is weak. A state can claim it has no territorial ambitions while maintaining a buffer zone for security reasons indefinitely.

The paragraph therefore converts occupation into a security necessity. It does not require Israel to withdraw because Lebanese sovereignty demands it. It allows Israel to remain until Israel decides that the threat has disappeared.

Paragraph 6 — original text

The Government of Lebanon, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and in exercise of its sovereign authority, reaffirms that its security forces hold exclusive responsibility for Lebanon’s security and defense and that the Government of Lebanon holds the exclusive sovereign authority to make war and peace. The Government of Lebanon rejects the claims of any state or non-state actor to use force on its behalf without its explicit authorization, and reiterates that any claim by any state or non-state actor to exercise a military or security role is illegal per the decisions of the Lebanese Government and contrary to Lebanese national interests.

Commentary

This paragraph is designed to delegitimise Hezbollah’s military role. It says only the Lebanese state has the sovereign authority to make war and peace, and that no state or non-state actor may use force on Lebanon’s behalf without explicit authorisation.

The legal principle is clear, but the political problem is equally clear. Hezbollah does not recognise this framework as legitimate. Speaker Nabih Berri has also rejected the logic of the agreement. The Lebanese Shia are not a marginal constituency. They have political weight, social cohesion and the capacity to refuse implementation. A framework that declares Hezbollah’s role illegal without securing domestic consensus does not solve the problem; it pushes Lebanon towards internal confrontation.

This paragraph also ignores the reason Hezbollah justifies its weapons: continued Israeli occupation, repeated Israeli attacks and the failure of international guarantees to protect Lebanon. Without real Israeli withdrawal and credible security guarantees, this paragraph will be seen by Hezbollah and its supporters as an attempt to disarm the resistance while Israel remains free to strike.

Paragraph 7 — original text

The Government of Lebanon and the Government of Israel affirm that nothing in this Framework prevents them from exercising their inherent right to defend themselves, as recognized in the Charter of the United Nations and consistent with applicable international law, reaffirming that no third party may exercise that right on their behalf. Both governments commit to establishing a military coordination group, with U.S. support and participation, to ensure overall implementation of this Framework.

Commentary

This paragraph contains one of the biggest loopholes in the agreement. It affirms that nothing prevents Israel or Lebanon from exercising the inherent right of self-defence. In ordinary international law, this is expected. In this specific context, it may swallow the whole framework.

Israel has repeatedly defined strikes in Lebanon as self-defence. If the framework does not strictly limit this right, Israel can continue military action while claiming that it is not violating the agreement. It can argue that strikes, assassinations, drone operations or incursions are preventive acts against Hezbollah threats.

At the same time, the paragraph says no third party may exercise self-defence on behalf of either government. This targets Hezbollah. The result is unequal: Israel keeps its operational freedom under the language of self-defence, while Lebanon is required to restrain the only force that has given it leverage against Israel.

The military coordination group, with US support and participation, also raises the question of neutrality. The United States is Israel’s closest strategic ally. If the US participates in the coordination mechanism, Lebanon may find itself inside a process where Israeli security claims are treated as authoritative.

Paragraph 8 — original text

The two countries affirm that they share the objective of a secure, rebuilt Lebanon, under full Lebanese state sovereignty, in which no non-state armed group poses a threat to Israel, Lebanon, or citizens of either country. Furthermore, the two countries recognize that the restoration of security in South Lebanon through the deployment of the LAF, the safe return of its civilian population, and the security of Israel’s northern communities, are essential to long-term stability and peace.

Commentary

This paragraph speaks of a secure and rebuilt Lebanon under full Lebanese sovereignty, with no non-state armed group posing a threat to Israel, Lebanon or their citizens. It also links southern Lebanon, the LAF’s deployment, the return of civilians and the security of Israel’s northern communities.

The language sounds balanced, but the emphasis is revealing. Lebanese sovereignty is tied to the removal of threats to Israel. Reconstruction and return become dependent on security performance. The danger is that Lebanese civilians are allowed to return only after Israel and the US are satisfied that Hezbollah has been removed from the relevant zones.

This turns the return of Lebanese civilians into a conditional process. It also risks making reconstruction dependent on security vetting rather than on the rights of displaced Lebanese citizens.

Paragraph 9 — original text

The Government of Lebanon commits to a rigorous, performance-based program to enable the capacity of the LAF to assert full military and security control within Lebanon in accordance with security arrangements, agreed upon within the framework of negotiations, and to implement the disarmament of all non-state armed groups and exercise effective authority across Lebanon. The Government of Lebanon welcomes the readiness of the United States to support such efforts, recognizing that any new U.S. assistance will be strictly conditioned on verifiable milestones, full transparency, demonstrated results, and ongoing oversight. This effort will enable the safe and orderly re-establishment of Lebanese sovereignty, also contributing to the broader stability and security of the entire Middle East.

Commentary

This paragraph makes US assistance to the Lebanese army strictly conditional on performance, verifiable milestones, transparency, demonstrated results and oversight. This creates a mechanism of American control over the LAF’s future capacity.

The problem is that the LAF is being asked to do something politically explosive: assert full military and security control, implement the disarmament of non-state armed groups and exercise authority across Lebanon. If US assistance is tied to these milestones, then the Lebanese army may be pressured to act not according to Lebanese consensus, but according to American and Israeli expectations.

This risks transforming the army from a national stabilising institution into the enforcement arm of an American-Israeli security design. The Lebanese army cannot easily refuse presidential orders or foreign assistance conditions. But it also cannot realistically be expected to confront Hezbollah and the Shia environment without risking national fracture.

Paragraph 10 — original text

Separately, and simultaneously, the United States will rally international partners to actively support the Government of Lebanon in rebuilding the country, repairing infrastructure, restoring the economy, and creating opportunities for prosperity. This is expected to include mobilizing substantial reconstruction and humanitarian assistance for Lebanon, economic recovery programs, and investment initiatives so that Lebanon can recover from years of conflict and provide a better future for all its citizens.

Commentary

This paragraph promises reconstruction, humanitarian assistance, economic recovery and investment. It is the incentive paragraph. It tells Lebanon that compliance will bring money, rebuilding and prosperity.

The hole is that there is no binding commitment. The United States “will rally international partners,” and assistance is “expected” to include reconstruction and economic programmes. This is not a firm obligation to fund Lebanon. It is political language.

The danger is that reconstruction becomes conditional on security compliance. Lebanon is asked to accept difficult internal security obligations in exchange for assistance that is not guaranteed, not quantified, not timed and not legally enforceable.

Paragraph 11 — original text

Lebanon and the United States commit to preventing funds from flowing to any entity, organization, or individual affiliated with non-state armed groups and to take available legal measures to proscribe the activity of any such entity, organization or individual. The Government of Lebanon explicitly commits to prevent reconstruction funds from flowing to non-state armed groups and connected entities.

Commentary

This paragraph is one of the most dangerous. It commits Lebanon and the United States to preventing funds from flowing to any entity, organisation or individual affiliated with non-state armed groups. It also requires legal measures to proscribe such activity.

This can become a financial siege mechanism. The term “affiliated” is broad. It may be applied not only to armed units but also to charities, reconstruction firms, municipalities, hospitals, schools, social organisations, contractors or individuals accused of connection to Hezbollah.

The result could be that reconstruction funds are withheld from heavily damaged Shia areas under the pretext of preventing Hezbollah benefit. This would punish communities and politicise reconstruction. Instead of rebuilding Lebanon, this paragraph may become a tool for reshaping Lebanon’s internal balance through financial exclusion.

Paragraph 12 — original text

Upon the signing of this Framework, the two countries will work to establish working groups to draft the full comprehensive peace and security agreement. Moreover, to achieve the goals of the Framework, the two governments will immediately establish complementary tracks of ongoing direct engagement, facilitated by the United States. The two governments commit to proceeding in good faith until a full and lasting peace is achieved, bringing security, stability, and prosperity to the people of Israel and Lebanon.

Commentary

This paragraph confirms that the framework is not merely a ceasefire mechanism. It creates working groups to draft a full comprehensive peace and security agreement and establishes ongoing direct engagement facilitated by the United States.

This is a major political step. It moves Lebanon towards direct bilateral negotiations with Israel and a future peace framework. Under Lebanese law and political doctrine, this is highly sensitive because Israel remains an enemy state. The paragraph does not explain how such negotiations are authorised domestically, whether parliament must approve them, or how this fits with Lebanese law.

The phrase “good faith” is weak. It does not protect Lebanon from Israeli delay or US pressure. It gives the process diplomatic language without strong guarantees.

Paragraph 13 — original text

In line with their shared goals to establish stable and peaceful relations, Israel and Lebanon commit to take good faith measures that demonstrate positive intent, including the cessation of all hostile or adverse actions in international political or legal fora, and pledge to work towards the search for and return of remains and the release of detainees.

Commentary

This paragraph may contain one of the largest hidden concessions. It commits Israel and Lebanon to cease “hostile or adverse actions in international political or legal fora.”

This could mean Lebanon is expected to stop legal and diplomatic action against Israel in international forums. It may affect UN complaints, international legal claims, war crimes accusations, diplomatic campaigns, or efforts to hold Israel accountable for occupation, destruction and violations of Lebanese sovereignty.

It could also be interpreted as preventing Lebanon from seeking compensation for the destruction caused by Israel’s war, including more than 64,000 homes, bridges, roads and other civilian infrastructure. Instead of preserving Lebanon’s right to demand reparations, this clause may force Beirut to abandon one of its few remaining non-military tools: legal and diplomatic accountability.

Lebanon would therefore be giving up pressure in international forums while Israel retains the right to act militarily under the language of self-defence. This paragraph protects Israel from legal and political consequences while Lebanon remains bound by security obligations.

The clause on remains and detainees is humanitarian, but it is placed inside a paragraph that may also restrict Lebanon’s international legal action. That combination is deeply problematic.

Paragraph 14 — original text

The two governments acknowledge the role of the United States in supporting their efforts to end decades of conflict and establish lasting stability and comprehensive peace between the two countries and express their deep appreciation for the vision and leadership of President Donald J. Trump.

Commentary

This paragraph is political theatre. It thanks the United States and praises President Donald J. Trump’s leadership. It reinforces the US role as sponsor, mediator and guarantor.

The problem is that the United States is not neutral. It is Israel’s closest strategic ally, arms supplier and diplomatic protector. By placing the US at the centre of the agreement, Lebanon enters a mechanism managed by the very power most aligned with Israel’s security doctrine.

This paragraph confirms the political hierarchy of the framework: Washington leads, Israel judges security, and Lebanon implements.

Overall conclusion

The framework’s central flaw is that it converts Israeli withdrawal from a legal and sovereign obligation into a conditional reward for Lebanese compliance. Israel does not have to withdraw by a fixed date. Lebanon must disarm Hezbollah, dismantle infrastructure, deploy the army, prevent funding to connected entities and accept US oversight. Israel retains self-defence discretion, security judgement and the ability to delay withdrawal.

The Security Annex is the most worrying element because it likely contains the real operational obligations while remaining outside public scrutiny. If the annex defines verification, zones, intelligence-sharing, deployment rules and Israeli objections, then the public framework is only the diplomatic cover.

The agreement also repeats the structural mistake of the May 17, 1983 Agreement. It attempts to impose a security arrangement on Lebanon without the consent of the forces capable of blocking it. Hezbollah rejects it. Nabih Berri rejects its logic. The Lebanese Shia community has the political and social capacity to refuse implementation. The Lebanese army can be ordered, but it cannot safely be pushed into civil confrontation.

The most important sentence is this: the framework does not restore Lebanese sovereignty; it makes Lebanese sovereignty conditional on Israeli satisfaction and American supervision.

That is not peace. It is a controlled crisis.