| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| Analysis of the Israel–Lebanon Framework Agreement: Does It Address Israel’s 'End Game'? |
| 2026-06-30 |
| by Sarit Zehavi and Tal Beeri [ISRAEL-ALMA.ORG] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On 26 June 2026, the framework agreement between Israel and Lebanon, mediated by the United States, was published the most comprehensive initiative in recent decades for regulating relations between the two countries. The agreement sets the ambitious objective of ending the conflict, disarming Hezbollah and the other armed groups, restoring the sovereignty of the Lebanese government throughout its territory, and promoting a future peace agreement. However, its success depends primarily on the ability to implement its objectives in practice. The following are the principal findings based on a comparative analysis of the framework agreement in light of the Alma Research and Education Center’s Policy Paper (March 2026): While the agreement relies on the ability of the Lebanese government and the Lebanese Armed Forces to lead the process of disarming Hezbollah, our assessment is that without sustained military, diplomatic, and economic pressure, together with profound reform of Lebanon’s state institutions, the likelihood of successful implementation is low. Strategic achievements for Israel: For the first time, it has been established that the withdrawal of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) will be gradual and conditional upon the verified disarmament of Hezbollah. In addition, the agreement’s focus has been expanded from southern Lebanon to the entire country, accompanied by a commitment to disarm all armed groups and to establish a direct linkage between security progress and Israeli withdrawal measures. Substantial implementation gaps: The published framework agreement does not include sufficient mechanisms for reforming the Lebanese Armed Forces, addressing Hezbollah’s civilian infrastructure, preventing arms smuggling from Syria, or preserving Israel’s freedom of action against future rearmament efforts. These gaps may enable Hezbollah to preserve its status as a “state within a state.” Civilian reconstruction as a strategic campaign: The reconstruction process in Lebanon could become an opportunity to replace the welfare, healthcare, education, and civilian service systems operated by Hezbollah with state institutions. Conversely, if the organization continues to control the reconstruction and aid mechanisms, it is expected to preserve and even strengthen its hold over Lebanese Shiite society. Increased risk of internal conflict in Lebanon: Any attempt by the Lebanese government to fulfill its commitments to disarm Hezbollah may lead to a direct confrontation with the organization. From Hezbollah’s perspective, this constitutes an existential threat to its status, identity, and survival in Lebanon. Therefore, there is a significant likelihood that it will use force to thwart implementation of the agreement. More at the link |
| Posted by:badanov |