Israel’s Netanyahu welcomes ‘historic’ Lebanon agreement as Hezbollah rejects it

Israel's Netanyahu Welcomes 'Historic' Lebanon Agreement as Hezbollah Rejects It

Israel s Netanyahu welcomes historic Lebanon - Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Saturday praised a trilateral agreement signed by Lebanon, Israel, and the United States, calling it a significant step toward peace in the region. The deal, reached after five rounds of negotiations in Washington, aims to resolve longstanding tensions between the two neighboring countries. Netanyahu emphasized its importance during a televised address, stating that the agreement marked a "historic breakthrough" for Israel. He framed it as a strategic victory against Iran and Hezbollah, the groups he has frequently blamed for prolonging the conflict.

Speaking from the podium, Netanyahu declared, "Yesterday, we achieved a historic deal for the state of Israel through direct talks with Lebanon." He argued that the agreement would weaken Iran’s influence and Hezbollah’s military capabilities, thereby securing Israel’s southern borders. The pact, he added, would ensure that Lebanon and Israel move closer to a definitive end of hostilities. "This is a blow to Iran and Hezbollah," he said, highlighting the geopolitical implications of the accord.

However, Hezbollah’s leadership has strongly criticized the deal, calling it a "humiliating and degrading agreement that represents a loss of sovereignty," according to Naim Qassem, the group’s leader. Qassem warned that the agreement could pave the way for Israeli annexation of southern Lebanon, stating, "This agreement is null and void, and the provisions of the Iranian-American memorandum of understanding must be implemented." His comments reflect Hezbollah’s belief that the agreement compromises Lebanon’s independence and aligns it with U.S. interests rather than its own.

“This agreement is null and void, and the provisions of the Iranian-American memorandum of understanding must be implemented,” said Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem.

The agreement outlines a phased approach, including a trial plan for Lebanese soldiers to reclaim areas currently under Israeli control. It also sets up a process to disarm Hezbollah, a key demand from Israel. Netanyahu stressed that the country would retain its security zone in southern Lebanon as long as Hezbollah remains armed, a point echoed by his defense minister, Israel Katz. Katz stated, "Israeli troops have been instructed to prepare for an extended stay in southern Lebanon," emphasizing that "no redeployment will occur until Hezbollah is fully disarmed."

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun described the agreement as "a first step" toward restoring his nation’s sovereignty. He acknowledged the need for Lebanon to take control of its territory, stating that the deal would "help solidify the Lebanese Armed Forces’ authority over all Lebanese land" once Hezbollah’s weapons are removed. Aoun’s cautious optimism contrasts with Hezbollah’s sharp condemnation, underscoring the divided perspectives within Lebanon on the pact.

“This agreement is null and void, and the provisions of the Iranian-American memorandum of understanding must be implemented,” said Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem.

Meanwhile, Israel’s far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir voiced strong opposition to the agreement, arguing that it weakens Lebanon’s ability to protect itself. Writing on his Telegram channel, Ben Gvir claimed, “The agreement with Lebanon is a big mistake... Indeed, we are staying in most of the territory for now, but the state of Lebanon will not disarm Hezbollah.” He accused the Lebanese government of being infiltrated by Hezbollah supporters, saying, “Members of the Lebanese government are Hezbollah ministers, and Lebanon cannot be trusted to take Hezbollah’s weapons... Only IDF soldiers will destroy Hezbollah, no other party will do it for us.”

The agreement’s context traces back to a critical incident on March 2, when Hezbollah launched rocket attacks on Israel in retaliation for U.S.-Israeli strikes that killed Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This event escalated the conflict, prompting Israel to conduct heavy airstrikes and a ground invasion into Lebanon. The military campaign destroyed thousands of homes and infrastructure, leaving parts of southern Lebanon under Israeli occupation. The current trilateral framework is seen as a diplomatic effort to de-escalate the situation and establish a sustainable peace.

Netanyahu’s repeated emphasis on the agreement’s significance suggests he views it as a turning point for Israel. In his televised briefing, he reiterated that both the U.S. and Lebanon have recognized Israel’s right to maintain a security presence in southern Lebanon as long as necessary. “The security of our nation is paramount,” he said, framing the deal as a compromise that balances territorial control with diplomatic progress. This stance has drawn mixed reactions from within Israel, with some officials supporting the agreement’s pragmatism and others, particularly the far right, viewing it as a concession to foreign forces.

Analysts note that the agreement’s success hinges on Lebanon’s commitment to disarm Hezbollah, a challenge given the group’s deep roots in the country’s political landscape. While the Lebanese government has pledged to comply, Hezbollah’s influence over key institutions remains a point of contention. The accord also includes provisions for joint economic cooperation and regional dialogue, aiming to build trust between Israel and Lebanon beyond military concerns. However, critics argue that these measures are secondary to the core issue of Hezbollah’s armed presence.

As the agreement moves forward, its impact on Lebanon’s internal politics and the broader Middle East conflict will be closely watched. The U.S. has positioned itself as a mediator, but its role in shaping the deal has sparked debates about its alignment with Israel’s strategic goals. Netanyahu’s team has maintained that the agreement reflects a balance between security needs and diplomatic outreach, while Hezbollah and its allies see it as a threat to their regional ambitions.

The road to peace remains uncertain, with both sides facing internal and external pressures. Lebanon’s government must navigate its relationship with Hezbollah, while Israel must contend with domestic political divisions. Despite the challenges, the trilateral agreement represents a critical moment in the ongoing efforts to stabilize the region. Whether it will hold or lead to further conflict depends on the willingness of all parties to uphold their commitments and address the underlying causes of the dispute.

Netanyahu’s embrace of the deal underscores his belief in the power of diplomacy to achieve security objectives. Yet, his insistence on maintaining a security zone in southern Lebanon has raised concerns about long-term occupation. The agreement’s provisions, including the trial plan for Lebanese control and the disarmament process, are seen as tentative steps toward a lasting resolution. As the implementation begins, the focus will shift to whether these measures can be sustained without triggering renewed hostilities.

In the meantime, the international community will monitor the agreement’s progress, with many hoping it marks a new era of cooperation in the Middle East. The U.S. has played a central role in brokering the deal, but its influence may come under scrutiny as the situation evolves. For Lebanon, the agreement offers a path to sovereignty, while for Israel, it represents a strategic gain. However, the ultimate success of the deal will depend on the trust between the nations and their ability to overcome historical grievances in the years to come.