Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Tied to Hezbollah Disarmament, But Is It Feasible?

Israel and Lebanon have reached a new framework agreement after four days of marathon negotiations in Washington, D.C., mediated by the United States, aimed at ending months of conflict. Israel currently occupies nearly 20% of southern Lebanon and has killed more than 4,000 people since fighting erupted on March 2. An earlier round of fighting ended with a ceasefire in November 2024, but Israel launched near-daily attacks and refused to end its occupation, violating the agreement.

However, the new deal does not explicitly demand an Israeli withdrawal; instead, it ties that to the disarmament of Hezbollah—a condition the Iran-backed armed group has repeatedly rejected. On June 27, Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem dismissed the framework agreement, calling it “void.” Hezbollah demands that Israel first end its occupation. Hezbollah supporters flooded the streets of central Beirut on the night of June 26 to protest the deal.

Details of the Israel-Lebanon Agreement

After the trilateral signing ceremony in Washington, the U.S. State Department released the text of the agreement, referring to a “sequential process” under which the Lebanese army would restore “effective sovereign authority throughout Lebanese territory, pending the disarmament of non-state armed groups” — a clear reference to Hezbollah.

The agreement does not require Israel to withdraw from Lebanese territory it now occupies. Instead, the framework states that Israel will “gradually redeploy” from Lebanon, with two “pilot zones” where the Lebanese army “will gradually assume full and effective security responsibility.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later said one zone lies south of the Litani River, and the other is a small area within an expanded security zone that the Israeli military said “is not required.”

When these conditions are met, “the people of Lebanon will be able to return safely to these areas under the exclusive control of the Lebanese state authorities.” More than 1.2 million people have been displaced. Israel declared that restoring southern Lebanon to the control of the Lebanese government would “eliminate any future need for Israeli military action or presence in Lebanon” and “affirms that Israel has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon.” The Lebanese government has signed a commitment rejecting “assertions by any party, whether state or non-state, to use force on its behalf without explicit authorization,” deeming such attacks “illegal” and “contrary to Lebanon’s national interests.”

Reactions from the Parties

Israel: Prime Minister Netanyahu stressed that the deal allows Israeli troops to remain on occupied Lebanese soil. “We will maintain [the buffer zone] until Hezbollah disarms and as long as there is a threat to the State of Israel,” he said. This is also a temporary victory for Netanyahu, who faces domestic criticism after the U.S. and Iran sidelined Israel to sign the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, which called for an end to hostilities in Lebanon.

Lebanon: President Joseph Aoun expressed gratitude to the U.S. administration and regional mediators after the signing, hailing the deal as “a first step on the path to restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty.” However, his statement did not ease tensions, as Hezbollah supporters burned tires and blocked roads leading to Beirut airport.

Hezbollah: Although not a party to the agreement, the armed group’s stance will determine future conflict. Leader Naim Qassem condemned linking an Israeli withdrawal to the group’s disarmament, calling the deal “humiliating, shameful, and a surrender of sovereignty.” He argued the agreement should be replaced by the Iran-U.S. memorandum signed on June 15. Earlier, Hezbollah parliamentary representative Hassan Fadlallah warned that the Lebanese authorities would be unable to implement the deal without U.S. support, “unless they move toward civil war.”

United States: Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced an immediate $100 million humanitarian aid package, while acknowledging the deal’s limited scope, calling it “the beginning of the beginning.” He said: “There is still much work ahead. We do not underestimate the difficulty of the task ahead.” Two previous U.S.-brokered ceasefires failed to halt fighting in Lebanon, as did the Islamabad Memorandum.

Iran: Although there has been no official response, Iranian state media has criticized the deal. The Fars news agency argued that the agreement essentially allows Israel to violate the first clause of the Islamabad Memorandum, which calls for an end to hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon.

Contradictions with the Islamabad Memorandum?

Analysts point to two direct contradictions between the U.S.-Iran Memorandum and the Israel-Lebanon agreement. First, the Islamabad Memorandum demands an unconditional end to hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon—while the Israel-Lebanon deal ties this to Hezbollah’s disarmament. Israel has not complied with any ceasefire and continues to strike Lebanese territory. On June 27, Lebanon’s NNA news agency reported that the Farah park intersection in Nabatieh al-Fawqa was hit by an Israeli drone strike. Israel has killed at least 4,192 people in Lebanon since the war with Iran began four months ago.

Second, the Islamabad Memorandum does not mention any Iran-backed armed groups among the terms to advance negotiations to end the war. Tahani Mustafa, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, said Israel and the U.S. “will certainly use Hezbollah’s refusal to disarm to blame Hezbollah for derailing the entire process.” She also argued that Israel “has shown it acts in bad faith, which does not inspire Hezbollah to disarm.” She criticized U.S. negotiators for “actively working behind the scenes to separate Lebanon from Iran.”

Can the Deal Work If Hezbollah Rejects It?

This is not the first time Hezbollah’s disarmament has been on the table. The 2024 agreement also called for it but failed because of continued Israeli attacks on Lebanon. Former Israeli ambassador to New York Alon Pinkas expressed skepticism about the deal’s chances of success, because the key issue remains Hezbollah. Al Jazeera correspondent Ali Hashem said the agreement is an “existential threat” to Hezbollah’s survival. “Without Hezbollah’s consent, this will not happen. It will be a recipe for another confrontation. The Lebanese government cannot impose this deal,” he said.