The agreement between Tel Aviv and Beirut does not answer the most urgent question: when will the Israeli occupation end?
Israel has made it clear that it will not withdraw from southern Lebanon until the Lebanese army proves that it has dismantled Hezbollah
BeirutA week ago in Washington there were smiles, handshakes and an agreement presented as the beginning of the end of the war between Israel and Lebanon. However, the situation on the ground has barely changed. Israeli soldiers remain deployed in parts of southern Lebanon and thousands of residents are still displaced, waiting to return to their war-torn villages. The document, presented by the United States as the first step to stabilize the border and restore the authority of the Lebanese state, leaves the most important question unanswered: when will the Israeli occupation really end?
The text does not set a date for the withdrawal. It makes it conditional. Israel has made it clear that it will not withdraw from the occupied areas until the Lebanese army demonstrates that it has dismantled Hezbollah's military infrastructure and eliminated any threat to its security. It is a change that may seem technical, but which profoundly alters the logic of negotiations that have been ongoing for decades.
Until now, Beirut's traditional position was simple: first the Israeli withdrawal, then the deployment of the Lebanese army, and finally, the extension of state authority over the south of the country. The new agreement reverses this sequence. Before Israel considers withdrawal, the army must deploy to the so-called pilot zones, locate and confiscate weapons, dismantle Hezbollah positions, and demonstrate that the area is under control.
On paper, the mechanism seems simple. In practice, it presents the Lebanese army with one of its most delicate missions since the end of the civil war. Soldiers will have to be deployed in cities where Hezbollah has maintained significant military infrastructure for years, and convince a population deeply marked by the war that the state is returning to stay. All this while Israel continues to occupy part of the territory and reserves the right to intervene militarily if it considers that threats to its security persist. For Beirut, the challenge is not only to disarm an organization that still maintains a significant political and social base, but also to do so without provoking an internal conflict that the country could barely afford.
Washington will closely follow the process. The United States will oversee the implementation of the agreement and will train the Lebanese units responsible for these operations, a sign that no one expects a swift mission. The success of each phase will be evaluated by a mechanism with American and Israeli representatives. Only then can a gradual withdrawal begin.
The question is not only whether the Lebanese army will be able to carry out this task. It is also how long it could take. The agreement does not set deadlines or define exactly what constitutes a threat to Israel's security. Nor does it specify when this condition could be considered met. In practice, the timeline remains open and the final decision depends on an assessment in which Israel will play a decisive role.
It is not the first time that an agreement sponsored by Washington links an Israeli withdrawal to a precondition. In 1983, another pact signed between the two countries stipulated that Israel would withdraw from southern Lebanon once Syrian troops had also withdrawn. Damascus never accepted this condition, and the agreement finally collapsed a few months later. Israel remained in the south for sixteen more years. The circumstances in 2026 are very different, but the precedent has inevitably returned to the Lebanese political debate.
An unequal agreement
This uncertainty also explains the breadth of criticism the agreement has provoked within Lebanon itself. The opposition does not solely come from Hezbollah and its ally Amal. Figures and parties outside the pro-Iranian axis have also expressed reservations, albeit for different reasons. Some question the absence of a binding timetable for the Israeli withdrawal; others fear that the agreement will limit the Lebanese state's ability to report future Israeli violations in international forums. Despite these differences, there is a point of agreement: the feeling that the obligations imposed on Beirut are much more precise and measurable than those assumed by Israel.
In Beirut, no one questions that the state wants to regain control of the south, nor that the monopoly on arms is a problem that will have to be resolved sooner rather than later. The real question is another: who sets the timeline. The agreement precisely establishes what Lebanon must do, but leaves Israel's obligations much more open.
While the Lebanese army prepares to deploy to the first pilot areas with US support and training, Benjamin Netanyahu's government insists its troops will remain on the ground until any threat to its security has been eliminated. This means the withdrawal is no longer tied to a timeline, but now depends on a political and military assessment, the outcome of which no one can predict. It could take months. It could drag on for years.