Beirut, Lebanon – Hundreds of protesters took to the streets in the Lebanese capital over the weekend to denounce a framework agreement signed by the governments of Lebanon and Israel under U.S. auspices. Many demonstrators, waving flags of the Iran-backed Hezbollah group, argued the deal fails to deliver justice for those who have endured war.
The 14-point agreement, signed on Friday (June 26), does not mandate the withdrawal of Israeli forces from areas they occupy in southern Lebanon. Since the conflict escalated in March this year, more than 4,200 people have been killed and hundreds of thousands displaced.
“After everything my family, my village, the south, and Dahiyeh have endured—destruction, displacement, grief, and loss—it’s hard for me to accept a deal with the very nation that waged devastating military campaigns against our communities,” Ali Zaytoun, a resident of a southern Beirut suburb, told media.
Mixed Reactions
Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem declared the agreement “null and void,” calling it “an insult and a surrender of sovereignty.” Hezbollah lawmaker Hassan Fadlallah warned of the risk of “internal conflict” in Lebanon. Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri urged calm but argued the deal was a ploy to stir unrest.
In contrast, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam wrote on social media that the agreement “aims to achieve Israel’s withdrawal from all Lebanese territory.” President Joseph Aoun called it a “first step” toward restoring sovereignty. However, many analysts argue the deal reflects a severe imbalance.
“This framework agreement essentially mirrors the reality of the military and political balance, which is heavily tilted toward Israel,” said Karim Emile Bitar, professor of international relations at Saint Joseph University in Beirut. He compared the deal to the Oslo Accords, suggesting that Israel gains recognition without binding commitments on a withdrawal timeline.
Reliance on the U.S.
Many analysts also criticize the agreement’s heavy reliance on the U.S.—Israel’s main military ally—for enforcement. Bitar argued the U.S. can hardly act as a neutral mediator and will almost certainly side with Israel in disputes.
Meanwhile, some Lebanese residents voiced concerns over a clause requiring the Lebanese government to disarm all non-state armed groups, including Hezbollah. Nicholas Blanford, an expert at the Atlantic Council, stated that “trying to disarm a group that refuses to surrender is an act of war,” and that the Lebanese government will be highly cautious.
On Saturday, Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz declared that Israeli soldiers would remain in Lebanon until Hezbollah is fully disarmed, signaling deep disagreements even after the agreement was signed.
