After 75 years of steadfast refusal to normalize relations with Israel. After 75 years of abject misery inflicted upon it, the Lebanese government is so desperate that it signed a so-called “framework agreement” (full text). It ratifies Israeli occupation, continued assault on its population, and eradication of virtually all of southern Lebanon. It is a capitulation that rivals the draconian armistice agreement ending WWI, which punished Germany and led directly to WWII.
Yet the media and world leaders are greeting it as a triumph. As if it actually achieves what it sets out to do: to create a ceasefire; ending occupation; IDF withdrawal; normalizing relations. Israel is of course delighted. It means it has co-opted yet another formerly hostile Arab state into normalizing relations. Nonetheless, any such expectations are premature.
The framework consists of vague clauses with no deadlines and no substance, qualities which characterize all such successful peace plans. As an example, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the main architect of the deal. called it “a framework of a framework.” This is the sort of vacuity which passes for US diplomacy in the Age of Trump.
The two sides negotiated it under Rubio’s watchful eye. It is a coup for him and, as I said, for Israel. Not only does it soften the blow of the Iran memorandum of understanding, which Israel considers a betrayal, but it offers Rubio an achievement he can tout as part of an anticipated 2028 presidential bid (he launched a failed 2016 bid for president).
Similarly, Vice President Vance has assumed the Iran-US portfolio, taking responsibility for the memorandum of understanding. It will presumably boost his own future presidential campaign. Though it too lacks specificity–as the recent round of renewed hostility has shown–it is a model of clarity compared to the Lebanon deal. At least, it has two parties who each want the same basic thing: an end to hostilities. Though each wants it on their terms.
Rubio and Vance will likely be competitors for the GOP presidential nomination. And peace treaties look awfully good on a candidate’s CV. Trump too touted his peacemaking skills in falsely claiming he’d ended seven–or is it eight or nine?-wars. He even laid claim to a Nobel Peace Prize, which somehow never ended up on his doorstep.
The MOU and Lebanon framework are dueling deals: two separate tracks not running in parallel. Not coordinated. Not in sync. Most notably, the Iran plan called for a full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon and a cessation of hostilities. The Lebanon-Israel document does not. Thus, Netanyahu is exploiting the contradiction by doing his best to wreck the MOU. He remains defiant about withdrawal and ending the killing. He’s stuck a finger in Trump’s eye, which is why he both the president and vice-president have railed against him.
The Israel-Lebanon framework is deeply flawed. Among its flaws, it calls for recognition of Lebanon’s territorial sovereignty, while also ratifying Israel’s continued illegal occupation of 20% of it lands. These two provisions directly contradict each other. That will lead inexorably to its failure.
Lebanon has squandered whatever leverage it had regarding Israel, and received in return two “pilot withdrawals” of IDF forces in the south. Why would the Lebanese negotiators agree to such a meaningless provision? They’ve allowed themselves to be played by the US and Israel. There are scores of ways for Israel to weasel out of this deal. It can simply refuse to withdraw. It can withdraw and then reoccupy the same area. It can use alleged Hezbollah attacks as an excuse to renege. There are far more reasons this will fail, than it will succeed. The main cause for failure will simply be Israel’s flagrant disregard for any and all such past agreements it has signed–from ceasefires to peace plans.
As far as Lebanese internal response to the brokered deal, there are numerous insurmountable obstacles. First, no Lebanese citizen would accept permanent Israeli occupation. Second, Hezbollah adamantly opposes it as an infringement on national sovereignty, and will resist with force if necessary. Third, because Hezbollah rejects it, Iran will as well. Fourth, much of the enforcement falls to the Lebanese army, which is a shell of a military force. It is no match for Hezbollah. It is expected to disarm Hezbollah and replace it in any territory from which the latter withdraws. Considering the militia rejects the plan, why would it withdraw and how will the army secure this objective?
Hezbollah’s presumed response echoes Charlton Heston’s NRA boast: “I’ll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.”
