Despite top US diplomat Marco Rubio declaring it as “the beginning” of peace between Israel and Lebanon, the framework designed to end hostilities has been greeted with much skepticism.
Fighting between the Lebanese group Hezbollah and neighboring Israel has displaced more than a million people in Lebanon as Israeli forces overran the so-called “security buffer zone”. Israel says it wants to protect its citizens living near the border in northern Israel from attacks by Hezbollah.
The latest fighting between the two warring parties, which have been at adversaries for decades, began in early March when Iran-aligned Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel in retaliation for Israel’s assassination of Iranian leader Ali Khamenei.
And since March, Israeli strikes have killed more than 4,000 Lebanese and wounded more than 12,000. At least 34 Israeli soldiers are believed to have been killed in the fighting.
The US has supervised five rounds of direct talks between Lebanon and Israel to stop the violence. Last Friday, results: A “Tripartite Framework” This will help both countries move towards a peaceful solution, which is agreed to by both Israel and Lebanon, as well as the US, which says it will support and monitor the agreement.
violence continues
The framework, which specified that the Lebanese government would have to disarm Hezbollah before the withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon, was clearly not going to please Hezbollah.
Hours after the agreement was announced, Hezbollah supporters protested in Beirut, burning tires and rioting near government buildings.
On Saturday, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem condemned the structure, saying it was “disgraceful, shameful and a surrender of sovereignty.” Qassem also said that he could see Lebanese lands being permanently annexed by Israel. Israeli troops currently occupy about 600 square kilometers of area in Lebanon.
Hezbollah plays a major role in Lebanese society, supported by the majority of the country’s Shia Muslim population. It also has a political and social branch and is often described as a “state within a state”.
Observers said the reaction from Hezbollah and its supporters was expected. But other Lebanese are also raising questions about the deal.
“In general, I’m against the war and how it started,” says Raymond Khouri, 39, who lives in Beirut, referring to how Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel in March.
“However, the agreement is not good for us,” Khoury told DW. This is despite the fact that he was previously in favor of direct negotiations between Israel and his country. “Article 13 of the agreement… is particularly problematic,” he said. “Many victims died during this war, yet this provision could mean there will be no accountability.”
The framework agreement has 14 points and the thirteenth states that neither party will use international law to favor the other. For example, this would mean Lebanese whose homes and livelihoods have been destroyed by Israeli forces, Cannot sue for damages or compensation In a place like the International Criminal Court.
“The main thing is that this agreement leaves Lebanon in a very weak position,” Steve, another Beirut resident, told DW. He did not want to give his full name because the topic is politically sensitive, but said he was also in favor of direct talks between the two countries earlier this year. “There have been a lot of compromises and Israel has been very clear in its cabinet meetings that it has no intention of acting in good faith.”
Since the announcement of the framework, Israel has continued to attack targets in Lebanon with bombs and drones. Clashes also continued between Hezbollah fighters and Israeli soldiers. Senior Israeli politicians, including the country’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said Israel did not plan to withdraw from southern Lebanon until its conditions were met.
Something good about the outline?
Some observers, particularly in Israel and the US as well as the Gulf countries, said the new agreement was positive because it removed Lebanon from Iran’s orbit. Earlier in June, while negotiating a memorandum of understanding with the US, Iran had made Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon part of any peace deal between itself and the US. This was seen by Iran as an encroachment on Lebanese sovereignty.
“The agreement itself is historic because it is the first signed agreement between Lebanon and Israel since 1983,” Hanin Ghaddar, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute, a conservative US think tank, told DW over the weekend. Disarming Hezbollah “is a complex and complicated process… but in reality it is the only and last option for Lebanon. Otherwise Iran will be able to capture Lebanon’s decisions.”
However, critics of the new framework agreement objected to it, saying that the US and Israel now have a say over Lebanon’s sovereignty, particularly as the framework primarily allows Israel to decide whether the Lebanese state has done enough against Hezbollah.
In terms of the framework having some positives, Jens Hansen, director of the Orient-Institut Beirut, an academic research institute in Lebanon, says that “It says Israel has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon, which is good to know. But it seems like that’s all Israel is doing in return,” he told DW.
For others who celebrated the framework deal – including many Lebanese politicians who reacted positively to it – what was important was that it was progress in a situation of impasse.
Syrian political commentator Aliya Mansour argued, “This does not amount to a peace treaty.” Al Majalla Magazine. “But it is a step toward ending the state of war… paving the way for negotiations that lead to a new security agreement.”
Some Lebanese analysts also pointed out that, although Hezbollah’s political allies were critical, they had not resigned from parliament, indicating that they would rather try to deal with the topic, rather than disrupt the existing system.
The reality may be very different
However, overall, the skepticism about the framework appears to outweigh any positivity, with almost every commentator – whether they praised or criticized the deal – noting that the most important thing will be implementation.
Khaldoon al-Charif, a senior political adviser at the Qatar-based Middle East Council on Global Affairs, said, “The opportunities the agreement has provided to Lebanon cannot be denied.” wrote this week. “However, the realization of these opportunities will depend on how the deal is implemented.”
He argues that the three parties involved – Hezbollah, Israel and the Lebanese government – all view the deal differently. “This means that the important question is not whether the agreement is good or bad, but whether an agreement can be enforced if the parties concerned cannot agree on its interpretation.”
“So let’s say it’s in all of our interests to disarm Hezbollah – is that the best approach, is that the most viable?” asks Hansen, director of the Orient Institute.
Like other locals, Hansen says that it seems the Lebanese state has over-accepted and he also notes that there are no concrete standards, deadlines or even concrete mention of Israeli withdrawal, only “redeployment”.
“I’m usually an optimist,” he concluded, “but right now I’m really worried about what Lebanon will look like in 10 years.”
Edited by: Andreas Illmer