Despite it being heralded as “the beginning of the beginning” of peace between Israel and Lebanon by the US’ top diplomat Marco Rubio, the framework that’s meant to end hostilities has been greeted with much skepticism.
Fighting between Lebanese group Hezbollah and neighboring Israel has displaced over a million people in Lebanon as the Israeli military has taken over a so-called “security buffer zone.” Irael says it wants to protect its own citizens living near the border in northern Israel from Hezbollah attacks.
The latest fighting between the two belligerents, who have been opposed to one another for decades, began early March after Iran-aligned Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel, in retaliation for Israel’s assassination of Iranian leader Ali Khamenei.
And since March, Israeli attacks have killed over 4,000 Lebanese and injured over 12,000. It is thought that at least 34 Israeli soldiers have been killed in the fighting.
To stop the violence, the US has overseen five rounds of direct talks between Lebanon and Israel. Last Friday, the result: A “trilateral framework” that would help the two countries move towards a peaceful settlement, agreed upon by both Israel and Lebanon as well as the US, which says it will support and monitor the agreement.
Violence continues
The framework, which specifies that the Lebanese government must disarm Hezbollah before Israeli troops withdraw from Lebanon, was obviously not going to please Hezbollah.
In the hours after the deal was announced, Hezbollah supporters protested in Beirut, burning tires and running amok near government buildings.
On Saturday, Hezbollah leader Naim Kassem denounced the framework, saying it was “humiliating, shameful, and a surrender of sovereignty.” Kassem also said it could well see Lebanese land permanently annexed by Israel. Israeli troops currently occupy around 600 square kilometers in Lebanon.
Hezbollah plays a major role in Lebanese society, having had the support of most of the country’s Shiite Muslim population. It has a political and social wing too and is often described as a “state within a state.”
The reaction of Hezbollah and its supporters was to be expected, observers said. But other Lebanese are also questioning the deal.
“In general, I am against the war and how it started,” says Raymond Khoury, a 39-year-old living in Beirut, referring to how Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel in March.
“However the agreement is not good for us,” Khoury told DW. That is even though he had been in favor of the earlier, direct talks between Israel and his country. “Article 13 of the agreement … is particularly problematic,” he added. “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 says that neither party will pursue the other using international law. For example, that would mean Lebanese, whose homes and livelihoods have been destroyed by the Israeli army, cannot sue for damages or compensation in a place like the International Criminal Court.
“The bottom line is that this agreement leaves Lebanon in a very weak position,” another Beirut local, Steve, told DW; he didn’t want to give his full name because the topic is politically sensitive, but he said he too had been in favor of direct talks between the two countries earlier this year. “There are so many compromises and Israel has been very clear in its cabinet meetings that it has no intention of acting in good faith.”
In the days since the framework was announced Israel has continued to attack targets in Lebanon, with bombs and drones. Hezbollah fighters and Israeli soldiers also continued to clash. Senior Israeli politicians, including the country’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said that Israel did not plan on withdrawing from southern Lebanon until its conditions were met.
Anything good about the framework?
Some observers, particularly in Israel and the US as well as the Gulf states, said the new deal was positive in that it moved Lebanon out of Iran’s orbit. Earlier in June, while negotiating a memorandum of understanding with the US, Iran made Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon part of any peace deal between itself and the US. This was seen as Iran impinging on Lebanese sovereignty.
“The agreement itself is historic as it as it is the first signed agreement between Lebanon and Israel since 1983,” Hanin Ghaddar, a senior fellow at conservative US think tank, the Washington Institute, told DW over the weekend. Disarming Hezbollah “is a tricky and complicated process … but it is really the only and last choice for Lebanon. Otherwise Iran will succeed in taking over Lebanon’s decisions.”
However critics of the new framework deal countered that by noting that now the US and Israel have a say over Lebanon’s sovereignty, particularly as the framework appears to mainly allow Israel to decide whether the Lebanese state has done enough against Hezbollah.
In terms of the framework containing something positive, Jens Hanssen, director of the Orient-Institute Beirut, an academic research institute in Lebanon notes that “it does say Israel has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon, which is nice to know. But that does seem to be all that Israel is dangling in return,” he told DW.
For others who celebrated the framework deal — including a number of Lebanese politicians who reacted positively to it —what was important was that it was progress in what had been a deadlocked situation.
It “does not amount to a peace treaty,” Syrian political commentator Alia Mansour argued in Al Majalla magazine. “But it is a step towards ending the state of war … paving the road for a negotiating track that leads 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 which indicated they would try to deal with the topic inside the existing system, rather than disrupting it.
Reality could be very different
However on the whole, skepticism about the framework seemed to outweigh any positives, with almost every commentator — whether they praised or criticized the deal — noting that the most important thing will be implementation.
“The opportunities the agreement presents to Lebanon cannot be denied,” Khaldoun el-Charif, a senior political advisor at the Qatar-based Middle East Council on Global affairs, wrote this week. “However, the realization of these opportunities will hinge on how the deal is implemented.”
The three involved parties — Hezbollah, Israel and the Lebanese government — all see the deal differently, he argues. “This means that the crucial question is not whether the agreement is good or bad, but whether any agreement can be implemented if the parties concerned cannot agree on its interpretation.”
“So let’s say it is in all of our interests to disarm Hezbollah — is this the best way, is this the most viable?” asks Orient-Institute director Hanssen.
Like other locals, Hanssen says it does look like the Lebanese state has conceded more than it needed to and he too notes there are no concrete benchmarks, time limits or even concrete mentions of Israeli withdrawal, just “redeployment.”
“I’m usually an optimist,” he concludes, “but right now I am really worried about what Lebanon might look like in 10 years’ time.”
Edited by: Andreas Illmer
About The Author
