By Samia Nakhoul
BEIRUT, June 29 (Reuters) — A security agreement between Israel and Lebanon is poised to deepen a stalemate rather than resolve the long‑standing conflict with Hezbollah, according to regional experts and politicians who argue that linking Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon to the disarmament of the Iran‑aligned group is simply impossible.
At its heart lies a pact most consider unworkable: Hezbollah has unequivocally refused to disarm, and no Lebanese government can compel it.
Given Hezbollah’s apparent unwillingness to surrender its arsenal, analysts contend that Israel now has a political cushion that allows it to maintain an indefinite military presence in southern Lebanon — a territory entered after Hezbollah’s March 2 attack on Israel, carried out in solidarity with Tehran over the Iran war.
The agreement places Lebanon in a precarious position, burdened with obligations it cannot fulfil and sovereignty it cannot fully regain, experts say.
Moreover, the framework clashes with Lebanon’s fragile sectarian politics, demanding a state already constrained by a post‑civil‑war power‑sharing system to confront its most formidable armed faction.
“This is not an agreement, it is an imposed settlement,” said a senior Lebanese politician who declined to be named.
The Lebanese army, he added, is neither structured nor equipped to disarm Hezbollah, and expecting it to do so ignores the group’s entrenched military capacity as well as the delicate sectarian balance on which Lebanon’s stability hinges.
BURDEN PLACED ON LEBANON
Political analysts point to an imbalance built into the agreement’s design, with sweeping obligations imposed on Lebanon but no reciprocal guarantee of Israeli withdrawal.
“This agreement has put all the burden on Lebanon,” said Michael Young, a Beirut‑based analyst. He added that it “creates a structure that allows the Israelis to remain (in southern Lebanon) indefinitely.”
Fawaz Gerges, a Lebanese scholar at the London School of Economics and Political Science, described the deal as “born dead” and fundamentally flawed, hinging on a condition that is impossible to meet in practice.
Gerges noted that Israel had already consolidated a buffer zone in southern Lebanon, roughly eight to ten kilometres (five to six miles) deep, while tying any future withdrawal to Hezbollah’s disarmament.
The terms of the deal risk legitimising this buffer zone as a long‑term presence, a “political gift” to Israel, he warned.
The conflict in Lebanon has remained a central element of diplomacy aimed at ending the wider U.S.–Iran war.
Gerges argued that Washington’s deliberate separation of the conflicts has afforded Israel greater freedom of action in Lebanon.
FEAR OF CIVIL CONFLICT
The Washington‑signed framework confirms that Israel has no claim to Lebanese territory and conditions Lebanese army authority in the south on the verified disarmament of non‑state armed groups, including Hezbollah.
Prime Minister Netanyahu portrays the deal as a historic achievement that could pave the way for broader peace, while Israeli troops remain deployed in a so‑called security zone meant to protect Israel’s north from potential attacks.
“We will continue to hold it (territory in the security zone) until Hezbollah and other terrorist organisations are disarmed, and until no further threat to Israel is posed from Lebanon,” Netanyahu said on Saturday.
Three senior Israeli officials acknowledged that Israel’s confidence in Lebanon’s ability to disarm Hezbollah is low, but they see the deal as a vital diplomatic step toward long‑term peace with Lebanon.
About 4,000 people have been killed in Lebanon and a million displaced during Israel’s military campaign against Hezbollah.
Lebanese President Joseph Aoun welcomed the agreement as a first step toward restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty, claiming it should enable Lebanese citizens to return to fully liberated land.
Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri called it an “agreement of dictates, not one that preserves Lebanon’s rights” and announced it would not be implemented.
Hezbollah’s chief, Naim Qassem, declared the deal “null and void” and a “surrender,” stating that his group would continue fighting until Israel is forced to leave. Hezbollah lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah warned of “internal conflict” in Lebanon.
Any attempt to forcibly disarm Hezbollah threatens to deepen sectarian tensions.
Young warned that the deal “won’t lead us anywhere except to civil conflict, and maybe an insurrection by the Shi’ite (Muslim) community.”
DEAL’S IMPLEMENTATION IN QUESTION
Danny Citrinowicz, a regional analyst and former Israeli military intelligence officer, asserted that Hezbollah’s dismantlement is “something that would never happen” and that the deal effectively legitimises an open‑ended Israeli military presence.
“Nothing will happen. Israel won’t withdraw, and Hezbollah won’t dismantle,” he said.
Citrinowicz further argued that no Israeli prime minister has the domestic political space to withdraw while Hezbollah remains armed and northern Israeli communities remain displaced.
He suggested that a narrower pact focusing on Hezbollah’s pullout from the south of the Litani River, an expanded Lebanese army deployment, and an extension of state authority would have had a better chance of succeeding.
Pro‑Hezbollah analyst Mohammed Obeid also viewed the deal as unlikely to be implemented, describing its provisions as “like explosives” capable of detonating Lebanon’s internal stability, since they hinge on state action to disarm Hezbollah.
