Alwaght- After five rounds of Israeli-Lebanese talks in Washington, the two finally struck a deal on Friday. The agreement was fast to cause outrage in Lebanon, with the people, especially the Shiite citizens, going furious at the government for its commitments under the deal.
The Lebanese government, however, described the deal a big win for Beirut, arguing that it forces the Israeli regime to exit from two "pilot zones", which are it said the prelude to full exit from the whole territories it has occupied since 2023. However, the critics, referring to the unimplementable and divisive conditions imposed on the Lebanese government by the Israeli regime, said that the agreement is a big treason to Lebanon and a great service to the interests of the Israeli enemy.
Here a question presents itself: Why do the Israelis call it a good deal despite the emphasis by the senior Israeli officials and on top of them Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on continuing military presence on the Lebanese soil? What is making the Lebanese government happy about the deal?
What does the agreement say?
Axios reports the framework agreement charts a path toward a future peace deal between Lebanon and the Israeli regime. The American website said the accord includes the following terms:
- Beirut and Tel Aviv declared their intention to permanently end hostilities and address their root causes.
- Israel and Lebanon recognize each other's right to exist in peace as two sovereign states.
- All unresolved issues between Israel and Lebanon will be settled through direct negotiations mediated and backed by the US.
- Israel and Lebanon commit to a reciprocal, conditional process for expanding Lebanese army control and carrying out an Israeli withdrawal.
- Operational details will be laid out in a security annex currently being drafted with full U.S. support.
- Successful implementation of the agreement's mechanisms will pave the way for a lasting, peaceful relationship between Israel and Lebanon.
- The Lebanese army will gradually take over security responsibilities in pilot areas to ensure the state's monopoly on weapons.
- Lebanese and Israeli militaries have agreed on two initial pilot zones to kick off the phased plan.
- Reconstruction will begin once disarmament of armed groups in designated areas is verified.
- Return of Lebanese civilians will be authorized after the government confirms security control is in place.
- The US will work to verify operational implementation and provide direct support.
Citing an Israeli official, Axios confirmed that under the deal, Israel will maintain its security zone within the so-called "Yellow Line" in Lebanon until Hezbollah is disarmed and until any threat from Lebanese territory against Israeli soil is eliminated.
Where are the "pilot zones" located?
A first look at the text of the deal tells us that not only the Israeli promise of army withdrawal from Lebanese territory is unlikely to happen, but also even the two pilot zones the Lebanese government wants to sell to the people as the surprise of the deal are insignificant.
The text says that these two zones will, firstly, be determined in coordination with the Israeli regime and, secondly, after disarming the non-state armed groups and dismantling their infrastructures. Thirdly, further pilot zones will be determined prospectively with a mutual agreement.
Two Israeli officials told Axios that one of these zones is located in north of Litani River and the second is in its south.
But just a few hours after the Washington-mediated deal was inked, Benjamin Netanyahu moved to clarify that no real concessions had been made to the Lebanese side, revealing that one of the two pilot zones sits outside the so-called "security zone," while the other is in an area where the Israeli military no longer sees a need to maintain a presence. To borrow a popular Persian saying: Lebanon's government is weeping over a grave with no corpse in it.
The Lebanese public is being played with a couple of token, marginal pilot zones that hold no value for the Israelis. This comes as Israeli forces have seized over 600 square kilometers of southern Lebanese territory up to the Litani River over the past two months. With this agreement, Beirut has effectively handed Israel a fig leaf to legitimize its ongoing occupation, because from here on out, not only is any full Israeli withdrawal contingent on meeting Israeli terms, but also the Lebanese government has also stripped its own people of the right to armed resistance against the occupation.
Netanyahu said the deal gives Israel no obligation to allow Lebanese residents or Hezbollah back into the "security zone" under its control, and that Israel will stay there "until Hezbollah is disarmed."
Another senior Israeli official confirmed Netanyahu's remarks to Axios, stating that "the Israeli military's freedom of action across the entire security zone will be preserved to eliminate any threat."
The US State Department's interpretation aligns squarely with Israeli officials' positions. In a statement, the department said the agreement "establishes a structured process for restoring Lebanese sovereignty, disarming Hezbollah, and dismantling its infrastructure, while enabling Israel to return to its borders once the threat to its citizens has been addressed." That interpretation hands Tel Aviv sole authority to determine when its obligations are fulfilled, effectively letting Israel judge its own compliance based on when it deems threats neutralized. This explains exactly why Netanyahu is so pleased with this deal.
Pushing Lebanon to civil war
But Israel is not just happy about its occupation of the Lebanese territory being legitimized, but the agreement contains a ticking bomb that by destabilizing Lebanon essentially seeks to remove the big challenges of the Israeli military in the battle against Hezbollah.
In other words, though in the past two months the Israelis have occupied a vast part of Lebanon territory, the guerrilla warfare and the painful blows Hezbollah fighters have landed on the Israeli forces have made these occupied territories a quagmire for the Israeli army and the political face of Netanyahu, so much so that as a result of continuation of Hezbollah attacks on northern Israeli settlements, the Israeli parliament voted to self-dissolution, leaving the coalition cabinet teetering on the brink of collapse.
In recent hours, Hezbollah officials have issued stark warnings about the ticking time bombs baked into this agreement. Hassan Fadlallah, a lawmaker close to Hezbollah, stressed that Lebanon's current government could only implement the Washington-brokered deal by dragging the country toward civil war.
In essence, the Israelis have handed off to the Lebanese state and military a mission they themselves could not accomplish, and one on which they had already failed to impose their terms on Hezbollah. That means outsourcing military confrontation with Hezbollah to Lebanon's army on Israel's behalf. Many experts see this as a nonstarter, warning it will only deepen and dangerously complicate Lebanon's internal fractures in an already fragile situation.
To put it differently, Tel Aviv hopes the agreement's mechanisms will deliver what neither the battlefield nor years of Western political pressure could achieve: shifting the burden of confronting Hezbollah from Israel to Lebanon's own government and military, transforming the Hezbollah case from an issue of foreign occupation into a domestic Lebanese problem.
At the same time, Tel Aviv has used this deal to force through de facto recognition of the regime and a pathway to normalization, without making a single concession. Article 2 of the agreement states that "Israel and Lebanon recognize each other's right to exist in peace as two sovereign states." Article 6 frames the accord's mechanisms as paving the way for a "lasting, peaceful relationship" between the two sides.
What does Lebanon’s government seek behind this deal?
Remarks by the Lebanese government officials after signing the deal demonstrate that the Beirut government sees this not as a political retreat in favor of Israel but as a historic opportunity to realize a project sought for years by part of the ruling current: eliminating Hezbollah from the dynamics of power.
The statement released by the presidential office described the deal as a "first step towards restoring the state control over the Lebanese territory and people." Prime Minister Nawaf Salam stressed that only the government holds the right to declare war and peace and what is demanded from Lebanon under this deal is actually the terms accepted by Lebanese political parties under Taif Agreement of 1989.
But the main issue is that Lebanon's government equates sovereignty not with the imperative to end occupation on its soil, but with eliminating any military structure outside the army, even if that structure happens to be the very force that has served as the primary deterrent against Israeli aggression for the past two decades.
In rushing into this deal, the government in Beirut has made it clear it has no interest in seeing the shadow of war and occupation lifted from Lebanon through the lens of an Iran-US agreement, but it views that outcome as fundamentally at odds with its own survival and sees itself as the clear loser in such a scenario. Notably, Hezbollah Secretary-General Sheikh Naim Qassem had already declared the inclusion of a Lebanon ceasefire in the Iran-US text a victory for the resistance. So the government is now bent on preventing a resistance security umbrella from taking hold over Lebanon, even if that means accepting continued occupation of its territory and ongoing Israeli attacks. In fact, one can now say with certainty that Lebanon's government is acting as a political proxy for the Israeli regime and Netanyahu.
Fadlallah confirmed as much, saying: "What happened in Washington was an attempt to derail the Tehran track." He also stressed that the agreement was a blow aimed at Iran, which he said wanted to force Hezbollah out of Lebanese territory under the guise of a US deal.
Under these circumstances, the fierce opposition from resistance-aligned factions is not merely about domestic political differences. It stems from a core assessment that the Washington agreement is essentially an effort to reshape Lebanon's internal power balance in favor of Israel and its regional and international allies, a shift they believe is being pursued not through the ballot box or national consensus, but through external pressure and the perpetuation of occupation.
Distrust in Israel: Tel Aviv's treachery speaks loud
For all the flaws and dangers inherent in this agreement's details, Lebanon's government can not even guarantee Israeli compliance with these modest, limited commitments. According to official figures, the Israeli regime's assaults since March 2 have killed 4,230 people, wounded 12,179, and displaced over one million.
Throughout this period, the Israelis have repeatedly flouted temporary ceasefire agreements, as they consistently did even after the November 2024 deal, continuing to violate the truce and carry out airstrikes deep inside Lebanese territory.
Despite the ceasefire announced on last Saturday, the Israeli regime continued its attacks on southern Lebanon, targeting the Nabatieh and Beit Yahoun with airstrikes and shelling. These attacks are specifically focused on northern Litani River area, where Tel Aviv is seeking to impose a new security equation while maintaining the buffer zone that stretches from Upper Nabatieh and East Zotar to the Ali Al-Taher heights and other regions 1 kilometers deep into the south.
