Israel-Lebanon Deal Sets Principles, but Its Test Will Be in Implementation
Details of the agreement signed Friday evening between Lebanon and Israel at the State Department have not yet been published. There is still no clear timetable for implementation, and it is also unclear how large the enclaves or pilot areas are from which the IDF is expected to withdraw. It is possible those points were not yet finalized and that this is only an agreement in principle.
The deal matters, the article argues, mainly because of the principles it appears to закреп, especially at a time when Iran is trying to reassert Hezbollah’s control over Lebanon and restore the country to a proxy role. One core principle is mutual respect for sovereignty. That means, from the Lebanese side, no citizen, including a Hezbollah member, would have any legitimacy to enter Israeli territory or fire on Israel without explicit authorization from Beirut. From Israel’s side, recognition of Lebanese sovereignty implies that once the threat from southern Lebanon ends, Israel will leave the area, withdraw to the international border, and be ready to discuss the 13 disputed points along the frontier with the Lebanese government.
A second principle is that any Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon is conditional on Hezbollah not returning and on the area being demilitarized. If Hezbollah and its heavy and light weapons are not removed, Israel would have justification to keep the security zone it currently holds. In the article’s framing, the agreement, under explicit U.S. sponsorship and with Secretary of State Marco Rubio, tells Iran not to interfere in Lebanon and cuts against Tehran’s effort to turn Lebanon and Hezbollah back into a full-time proxy.
A third principle is that withdrawal south and east of the yellow line is not automatic. It depends on the Lebanese Army’s performance, the American monitor overseeing demilitarization, and the broader mechanism that will supervise the process. The article notes that Hezbollah loses legitimacy as Lebanon’s supposed “defender,” while Beirut is effectively telling it that it is obstructing the return of nearly one million Shiites to their villages and bears responsibility for the destruction there.
Still, the piece urges caution. It recalls the 1983 Israel-Lebanon peace agreement, negotiated by David Kimche and then-Lebanese leader Amine Gemayel, which was never approved by the Lebanese government or ratified by parliament and faded into irrelevance. It also notes that UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the Second Lebanon War, was largely a dead letter. The article concludes that only if both governments give the agreement practical content, with strong U.S. involvement, will this deal be different.
