Lebanon’s Framework Agreement with Israel Criticized as Legitimizing Occupation
According to the International Desk of Webangah News Agency, a “framework agreement” between the Lebanese government and the Israeli regime is positioned as a document to shift the balance of power in Lebanon and solidify Israel’s military achievements. This agreement, rather than guaranteeing Lebanon’s security, has made Israeli security the primary concern of the Beirut government. In return, Lebanon’s national sovereignty, the position of the resistance, and even the country’s internal cohesion are facing a serious threat.
The critical question arises as to why Lebanon has reached this point. The answer likely lies in a strategic error made from the outset of the negotiations. The Lebanese government, instead of utilizing the capacity of the 14-point understanding between Iran and the United States to end the war, sought to demonstrate its ability to manage the war file independently of Hezbollah and the Islamic Republic. This approach is a political attempt to distance itself from the Axis of Resistance and assert the independence of the Lebanese government – an effort that ultimately preserves neither independence nor security, but yields a completely reversed outcome.
The Lebanese government assumed that by sidelining the resistance and engaging directly in negotiations, it could secure greater concessions. However, the result has been entirely different. The text of the agreement indicates that virtually all of the Israeli regime’s core demands have been included, ranging from the disarmament of Hezbollah to the exclusive control of weapons by the government, the establishment of joint security mechanisms with U.S. support, direct negotiations between Lebanon and Israel, and even laying the groundwork for a permanent peace agreement and the eventual recognition of occupation.
In essence, what Israel has been unable to achieve through military force over decades of war and aggression is now being pursued through a political agreement. Benjamin Netanyahu’s statements following the agreement clearly indicated that it was a result of significant blows inflicted by the Israeli army on Hezbollah, emphasizing that the accord would weaken Iran and Hezbollah while strengthening Israel. He even thanked the Lebanese government for its “courage” in accepting this process. Such rhetoric clearly shows that Tel Aviv perceives this agreement not as a compromise, but as a strategic victory.
Most significantly, this agreement effectively legitimizes Israel’s occupation. Contrary to claims of ending the war, the agreement’s text does not guarantee the immediate withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanese territory. Instead, the withdrawal is conditioned upon the full implementation of the disarmament process for resistance groups. In other words, Israel’s military presence will continue until Tel Aviv is satisfied with the full implementation of Lebanon’s commitments. This transforms occupation from an illegal act into a tool for political and security pressure.
This issue is considered one of the most dangerous consequences of the agreement. In international law, occupation is an illegal act. However, when the continued presence of an occupying force is accepted through a bilateral agreement, it essentially creates political legitimacy for it. This is precisely what Hezbollah has warned against. Sheikh Naim Qassem has labeled the agreement “humiliating” and lacking validity, emphasizing that linking Israel’s withdrawal to the disarmament of the resistance crosses all red lines and paves the way for a long-term occupation of southern Lebanon.
Perhaps more dangerous than solidifying the occupation is the agreement’s internal consequence. Israel no longer needs to directly engage in conflict with Hezbollah, as the responsibility for disarming the resistance has been transferred to the Lebanese army. In other words, the new agreement has placed upon the Lebanese government a mission that Israel has been unable to accomplish for years. This is precisely the scenario that Israeli media outlets have acknowledged, suggesting that the Lebanese army will engage with Hezbollah while Israel merely observes.
Such a progression could plunge Lebanon into one of the most perilous periods of its contemporary history. The country’s experience has shown that whenever a rift between the government, the army, and the resistance escalates into security confrontation, the conditions for civil war are created. Now, there is a risk that political disagreements over resistance weaponry could devolve into military confrontation between Lebanese forces – a confrontation where Israel would be the primary beneficiary.
Furthermore, the United States is not merely playing the role of an impartial mediator in this agreement; it has become a principal actor in its implementation. Nearly all clauses of the agreement are tied to U.S. oversight, support, or guarantees, encompassing security arrangements, Lebanon’s reconstruction, economic aid, the formation of joint working groups, and even oversight of financial resource expenditure.
This extensive dependency raises serious questions about the Lebanese government’s decision-making independence. A country that sought to prove its independence from the Axis of Resistance has now tied virtually all its security and economic mechanisms to Washington. In effect, in an attempt to distance itself from a regional player, the Lebanese government has become more dependent on an extra-regional actor.
Another point worthy of consideration is the gradual shift in the agreement’s rhetoric. The published text explicitly states that this framework could lead to a comprehensive peace agreement between Lebanon and Israel. This implies that what begins today as an end to hostilities could tomorrow lead to the full normalization of relations with the Israeli regime – a path that a significant portion of Lebanese society has opposed.
From a strategic perspective, this agreement sends a clear message to the region. If a country, after enduring military aggression, ultimately accepts the occupation of part of its territory, disarms its internal resistance, and prioritizes the enemy’s security over its own, it sets a dangerous precedent for the future. This precedent suggests that military aggression can be translated into political gains.
The reality is that the Lebanese government has made a fundamental miscalculation. It presumed that distancing itself from the resistance and engaging independently in negotiations would strengthen the country’s position. However, the outcome has been precisely the opposite. Today, not only does Israel refer to this agreement as a historic victory, but the text of the accord also reflects that virtually all of Tel Aviv’s strategic objectives – from weakening Hezbollah to altering Lebanon’s security structure – have been incorporated.
Lebanon could have chosen a different path – one based on halting the war, an unconditional withdrawal of occupying forces, and maintaining a deterrent balance. However, the country’s government opted to distance itself from the prior understanding with the aim of showcasing political independence and pursued direct negotiation. The consequence of this choice has been not the consolidation of national sovereignty, but the legitimization of the occupiers’ presence, the delegation of resistance disarmament to the Lebanese army, an increased U.S. role in internal decision-making, and the creation of conditions for a deep internal rift.
Ultimately, perhaps the most significant lesson from this experience is that in foreign policy, emotional and symbolic decisions cannot substitute for strategic calculations. Independence is not merely defined by distancing oneself from an ally; it gains meaning when a government can defend its territorial integrity, national sovereignty, and the security of its people without accepting the demands of an aggressor. If the outcome of an agreement is that the occupier considers itself victorious, the resistance is weakened, the risk of civil war increases, and the path to normalizing relations with the enemy is smoothed, it is laughable to call it an achievement for Lebanon.
