Israel’s Agreement With Lebanon May Be Doomed

Marco Rubio, the US secretary of state, called it a “major milestone,” heralding what could be a new chapter in Israel’s often rocky bilateral relations with Lebanon.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, described it as “a major achievement” that could well open the door to an eventual peace agreement between Israel and its northern neighbor.

The US-brokered framework agreement, signed by Israel and Lebanon in Washington on June 26 after five rounds of direct talks, may indeed prove to be historic. But as Rubio realistically observed, it marks only the “beginning of the beginning” of Israel-Lebanon negotiations, and it faces enormous and, perhaps, insurmountable challenges.

If it is ever implemented, Israel will continue to occupy its self-declared buffer zone in southern Lebanon and withdraw from two small “pilot zones” near the Litani River. Israel is supposed to transfer them to the Lebanese army, which will then be responsible for keeping Hezbollah, a proxy of Iran, out of these areas.

A timeline for Israel’s withdrawal has yet to be determined. And as matters stand today, Israel is skeptical that the pilot zones will be expanded. Israel has little faith in the Lebanese army’s capabilities or its willingness to confront Hezbollah, which is widely regarded as the most powerful military organization in Lebanon.

If the framework agreement works, Israel will relinquish yet more territory and eventually pull out of Lebanon altogether. In exchange, Lebanon’s army would be expected to disarm Hezbollah within the broader context of an Israel-Lebanon peace treaty.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun recently told US President Donald Trump that he is committed to implementing it, but he underscored the urgency of an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon. For compelling domestic reasons, the Lebanese government is far more focused on this facet of the framework accord than a rapprochement with Israel.

Israel was coaxed by the United States, its chief ally, to sign it after a period of tension.

Earlier this month, the United States and Iran signed a memorandum of understanding to end their war, which erupted last winter after the US and Israel attacked Iran in a joint air campaign that badly degraded Iran’s armed forces and military industries and wiped out parts of its leadership.

Israel was not a party to the memorandum of understanding, one of whose clauses calls for a “permanent termination of the war on all fronts, including Lebanon.”

Iran, Hezbollah’s benefactor, has threatened to withdraw from the memorandum of understanding unless Israel pulls out of Lebanon. Desperate to extricate the United States from the war,  Trump appears to have pressured Israel to abide by Iran’s demand.

To no one’s surprise, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejected the linkage between Lebanon and Iran, saying they were separate issues and should not be conflated.

The Trump administration, having listened to his concerns, reportedly persuaded Netanyahu to accept a middle-of-the-road proposal under which Israel will remain in the buffer zone until its security demands are met.

According to the Times of Israel, the framework agreement allows Israel full freedom of action against both emerging and immediate threats within the security zone, a top Israeli priority, and states that no withdrawals will take place automatically and will be based on conditions on the ground.

Calling the framework agreement “a major blow” to Iran, Netanyahu said that Israel will hold the buffer zone until Hezbollah and “other terror groups are disarmed” and the threat from Lebanon vanishes.

Netanyahu claimed that Iran has “no status, no involvement and no role” in Lebanon.

His comment, to say the least, is an oversimplification of a complex situation.

Iran, through its political, military and financial ties with Hezbollah and the Lebanese Shi’a community, is an extremely important factor in Lebanese politics. Hezbollah rejected the framework agreement after consultations with Iran.

Its leader, Naim Qassem, has condemned it as a humiliating surrender of Lebanon’s sovereignty and an “incitement to civil war.” Having declared it “null and void,” he said it should be replaced by the memorandum of understanding, which links the current ceasefire in Lebanon with the shaky US-Iran truce.

Nabih Berri, the Speaker of Lebanon’s Parliament and an ally of Hezbollah, said that the framework agreement “will not pass” or be implemented in its “current form” because it fails to preserve Lebanon’s “rights.”

Hezbollah insists on a full Israeli withdrawal before its disarmament is seriously considered. Israel demands that Hezbollah must lay down its arms before it pulls out of Lebanon. And therein lies a fundamental problem that may never be resolved.

The commander of Israel’s armed forces, General Eyal Zamir,  has praised the framework agreement as “historic and significant” and indicated that Israel will honor it and work to ensure its success. But he warned that it will be tested by events on the ground.

This already has happened, the ceasefire notwithstanding.

On June 28, an Israeli army officer was killed in a clash with Hezbollah, straining Israel’s framework agreement with Lebanon. He was the first Israeli soldier to die since it was signed. Thirty eight Israeli soldiers have fallen since Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in the first week of March. Israel claims to have killed some 2,000 Hezbollah fighters.

More than 4,000 Lebanese civilians have been killed and some 12,000 have been injured, according to Lebanon’s Ministry of Health.

A day earlier, Israel killed several Hezbollah gunmen operating close to its lines. And in a separate incident, Israel destroyed a Hezbollah rocket launcher that posed a threat to its forces.

If the past is any guide, these clashes will erupt on a regular basis, undermining Israel’s framework agreement with Lebanon and the United States’ memorandum of understanding with Iran.

The framework agreement may yet collapse, meeting the same fate as Israel’s misbegotten 1983 peace accord with Lebanon, which quickly sunk into obscurity.