Israel and Lebanon on the path to peace?
Israel and Lebanon signed a framework agreement in Washington on Friday aimed at ending their hostilities. Both sides declared their intention to achieve "lasting peace and security" and bring an end to the state of war that has existed since 1948. Hezbollah was not involved in the negotiations and has said the deal is "null and void".
The end of Iran's dominance
The agreement eliminates Tehran's influence in Lebanon, The Spectator comments with approval:
“Its deeper significance is political. For the first time in many years, Washington, Jerusalem and Beirut have jointly established a diplomatic framework that explicitly treats Lebanon as a sovereign state responsible for its own territory, its own security and its own decisions of war and peace. Lebanon is no longer Iran's to negotiate. ... The agreement matters beyond southern Lebanon, because it redraws the strategic map of the Levant by separating the Lebanese theatre from the Islamic Republic's wider regional project.”
Israeli presence in southern Lebanon legalised
Film producer Alexander Rodnyansky emphasises the historical significance of the agreement in a Telegram post republished by Echo:
“For the first time since 1948, Lebanon has officially recognised Israel. ... The document stipulates that the Israel Defence Forces have the right to remain in the designated security zones in southern Lebanon until Hezbollah has been disarmed. It is important to understand that from now on Israel is present on Lebanese territory under an agreement with that country's government. In other words, Israel's presence does not violate Lebanon's sovereignty. It remains to be seen where things will go from here. But this agreement is a genuine achievement.”
Key factor Hezbollah left out
La Stampa is sceptical:
“The agreement is inherently fragile in its most crucial aspect, namely the demand that the Lebanese state act as though it already holds a monopoly on power, whereas the entire text exists precisely because this monopoly does not yet exist in Lebanon. ... The entity that is to be disarmed is not sitting at the table. Hezbollah is the key formal absentee and the key real presence. It is absent from the signing ceremony but present in every line that refers to 'non-state armed groups', Israel's freedom of action, and reconstruction funds that are to be withheld from entities affiliated with the militia.”
Yet another leaky deal
De Standaard fears that the agreement won't bring lasting peace to Lebanon:
“Like the memorandum on Iran, the new trilateral framework agreement does not appear to be watertight either. ... This agreement has sparked heated debate, particularly in Lebanon. ... The Iranian regime reacted with little enthusiasm. ... This raises the question of whether the Iran deal really has been coordinated with the Lebanon agreement ... Despite this latest 'historic agreement', the Israeli army continued its bombardments as usual this weekend in various locations in southern Lebanon.”
Joy tempered by fear
Much like the US-Iran memorandum, the agreement leaves plenty of room for interpretation, Der Standard notes:
“According to the Lebanese interpretation, this is the first step towards Israel's complete withdrawal from Lebanon. Israel, however, can argue that the 'framework' legitimises the continued presence of Israeli troops in Lebanon as long as Hezbollah has not been completely disarmed and pushed back. ... The Shia militia has aligned itself, so to speak, with the Israeli interpretation and intends to resist the Lebanese army, which is tasked with carrying out the disarmament. The joy felt by many Lebanese men and women at the prospect of Iran's influence finally being broken is tempered by fears of a civil war.”