disarmament

Israel and Lebanon have agreed on a new framework agreement after four days of marathon talks in Washington, DC, brokered by the United States, trying to end the months-long conflict.

Israel has been occupying almost 20 percent of Lebanese territory in the south and has killed more than 4,000 people since fighting erupted on March 2. A previous bout of fighting ended in a ceasefire in November 2024, but Israel carried out almost daily attacks and refused to end its occupation in breach of the deal.

The new deal, however, does not specifically call for the withdrawal of the Israeli forces and instead ties it to the disarmament of Hezbollah – a condition repeatedly rejected by the Iran-backed armed group.

Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem on Saturday rejected the framework agreement, calling it “null and void”. Hezbollah has demanded that Israel first end its occupation.

Hezbollah supporters flooded the streets of the capital, Beirut, on Friday evening to oppose the deal.

So, what is the new agreement, which does not include Hezbollah, and can it lead to peace in Lebanon?

What’s in the Israel-Lebanon agreement?

After the trilateral signing in Washington, the US Department of State released the text of the agreement, which talks of a “sequenced process” that will see the Lebanese army restore “effective sovereign authority over all Lebanese territory, pending the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups” – a clear reference to Hezbollah.

The deal does not mandate Israeli withdrawal from the fifth of Lebanese land it occupies. Instead, the framework notes that Israel shall “progressively redeploy” out of Lebanon, offering two “pilot zones” where the Lebanese military “will gradually assume full and effective security responsibility”.

“One [pilot zone] is south of the Litani River and outside the security zone altogether, and the other is north of the Litani – a small area in the expanded security zone that we conquered in the last two weeks, and which the [Israeli military] says it does not need,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu later said in a statement.

Once these conditions are met, “Lebanese civilians will be able to safely return to these areas under the exclusive control of Lebanese state authorities,” the framework says. More than 1.2 million people have been forcefully displaced.

Israel says that successfully returning southern Lebanon to Lebanese government control would “eliminate any future need for [Israeli military] action or presence in Lebanon” and “[declared] that it has not territorial ambitions in Lebanon”.

The Lebanese government has signed that it rejects “the claims of any state or non-state actor to use force on its behalf without its explicit authorization,” deeming such attacks “illegal” and “contrary to Lebanese national interests”.

How have parties to the conflict reacted to the agreement?

Israel

Netanyahu issued a video statement shortly after the agreement was announced, stressing that the framework would allow the Israeli military to remain in the occupied Lebanese land.

“We will maintain [the buffer zone] until Hezbollah disarms and as long as there is a threat to the State of Israel,” Netanyahu said.

It is also a partial, momentary win for Netanyahu, who faced intense domestic criticism after the US and Iran sidelined Israel to sign the Islamabad Memorandum of Understanding, which mandates an end to hostilities in Lebanon as well.

Lebanon

President Joseph Aoun expressed gratitude to Trump and other regional mediators after the signing of the trilateral agreement, which he hailed as “the first step on the path to restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty”.

In a statement from the Lebanese presidency, Aoun noted that the framework also “marks the beginning of the road to fructify [Lebanese citizens’] sacrifices, so that they may return to their fully liberated land”.

His statement has done little to tamp down the tensions in the capital, where supporters of Hezbollah took to the streets, burning tyres and blocking a road leading to the airport.

Hezbollah

Though the armed group is not a party to the agreement, and was not present at the negotiating table, its posture and actions will dictate where the conflict heads in the future.

The Hezbollah leader on Saturday condemned proposals to tie the Israeli withdrawal to the group’s disarmament. “Linking the Israeli withdrawal to the disarmament of the resistance throughout Lebanon is a very dangerous proposition that crosses all red lines,” he said.

“The framework agreement in Washington is humiliating, shameful, and a surrender of sovereignty,” he said.

He added that the framework agreement should be replaced by the Iran-US Memorandum of Understanding (⁠MoU) signed on June 15.

Earlier, Hassan Fadlallah, a Hezbollah representative in the parliament, said Lebanese authorities would not be able to enforce the framework agreement unless, with US support, “they go to civil war”.

In a televised speech before the agreement was signed, Qassem said that Hezbollah would hold its weapons closer, ready to fight Israel for Lebanon, if the Lebanese state fails to do so.

The Iran-US MOU called for the “territorial integrity and sovereignty of Lebanon” – a similar wording has been used in the framework agreement.

United States

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Washington’s point person in Israel and Lebanon talks, announced an “immediate” $100m donation by the US towards humanitarian assistance in coordination with the UN.

At the signing ceremony at the State Department in Washington, Rubio appeared to acknowledge the limited scope of the agreement, calling it “the beginning of the beginning.”

“There’s a lot of work ahead. We don’t in any way underestimate the difficulty of the task ahead, but we understand the importance of it, how vital it is, and we are honored to have played a part in bringing this together,” he said.

Two previous ceasefire agreements brokered by Washington failed to stop the fighting in Lebanon, as well as the Islamabad MOU, signed by President Trump and his Iranian counterpart Masoud Pezeshkian, earlier this month.

Iran

Though Tehran is yet to officially react to the agreement, its state media has been pressing against the deal.

Fars news agency noted that the agreement is essentially the US permitting Israel to violate the first clause of the Islamabad MOU, which mandated the cessation of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon.

Does the Israel-Lebanon agreement contradict the Islamabad MOU?

Analysts point towards two direct contradictions between the preliminary deal signed by the US and Iran, and the latest agreement between Israel and Lebanon.

In short, the Islamabad MOU mandates the end of hostilities on all fronts, including Lebanon, with no conditions – while the Israel-Lebanon agreement ties it to Hezbollah’s disarmament.

Israel has not adhered to any of the ceasefire agreements, including earlier ones, and continued with its assault on Lebanese territories. On Saturday, Lebanese state news agency NNA reported that the Farah amusement park intersection in Nabatieh al-Fawqa was targeted by an Israeli drone strike.

Israel has killed at least 4,192 people in Lebanon since the start of the war on Iran four months ago.

Secondly, the Islamabad MOU does not refer to or mention any of the Iran-backed proxy armed groups among its listed clauses to take forward the negotiations to end the war.

Tahani Mustafa, a visiting fellow on the Middle East and North Africa programme at the European Council on Foreign Relations, told Al Jazeera that Israel and Washington would “definitely use the fact that Hezbollah refuses to disarm and capitulate to blame Hezbollah for derailing the entire process”.

Mustafa further added that Israel “has also proven that it is acting in bad faith, which really gives no confidence to Hezbollah to disarm or capitulate in the way that is being demanded.”

Washington is not blame-free either, she noted, arguing that “the American negotiators actively work behind the scenes to try and decouple Lebanon and Iran.”

“This has really just been something that both the Israelis and the Americans have attempted to cook up behind the scenes and once again obfuscating the blame for its failure,” she told Al Jazeera.

Can a deal work if Hezbollah rejects?

This is not the first time that Hezbollah’s disarmament is on the table – and the existing challenges remain. The 2024 deal also called for Hezbollah’s disarmament, but it could not be achieved as Israel continued to attack Lebanon and refused to withdraw its troops in breach of the deal.

Alon Pinkas, an Israeli former ambassador and consul general in New York, says he is “very doubtful and sceptical” that this will work out because the deal is between Israel and Lebanon with the US; the issue here is Hezbollah.”

Iran’s linking of the Lebanon conflict to the maturation of an agreement with the US, Pinkas says, “complicates things [because] Netanyahu said that [Israel] would not yield to any linkage to Iran and that Israel would defend itself in Lebanon”.

Al Jazeera’s Ali Hashem said that the agreement is an “existential threat” to Hezbollah’s presence.

“Without Hezbollah’s consent, this is not going to happen,” Hashem said. “This is going to be a recipe for another confrontation. The Lebanese government isn’t capable of imposing this deal. It’s not the de facto force on the ground.”

June 26 (Asia Today) — Former Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said Friday that North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile programs have made the pursuit of nuclear disarmament increasingly difficult, but Japan must not abandon its goal of a world without nuclear weapons.

Speaking at the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of Japan in Tokyo, Kishida said East Asia is facing its most severe security environment since the end of World War II.

“Japan must strengthen its defense capabilities and further reinforce the Japan-U.S. alliance,” Kishida said. “At the same time, we must not give up the ideal of pursuing a world without nuclear weapons.”

Kishida, a lawmaker whose constituency is in Hiroshima, made nuclear disarmament a major diplomatic priority during his tenure as prime minister.

He cited Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, instability in the Middle East and North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs as evidence that the international security situation surrounding nuclear weapons is “undeniably severe.”

Kishida said stronger national security and nuclear disarmament should not be viewed as mutually exclusive goals.

“Reality and ideals are not incompatible,” he said. “The issue is not choosing one or the other, but determining how to bring reality closer to the ideal.”

Kishida recalled becoming the first Japanese prime minister to attend a review conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 2022.

At the conference, he presented the Hiroshima Action Plan, a series of practical steps intended to advance nuclear disarmament while acknowledging the international security environment.

The plan calls for maintaining the record of non-use of nuclear weapons, increasing transparency surrounding nuclear forces, continuing reductions in global nuclear stockpiles, strengthening nuclear nonproliferation and promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy.

“We must narrow the gap between reality and the ideal one step at a time,” Kishida said.

Ukraine warning for East Asia

Kishida linked the war in Ukraine to security concerns in East Asia.

He recalled his unannounced visit to Kyiv in March 2023, when he met Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and expressed Japan’s solidarity with Ukraine.

Kishida said he delivered the message that “Ukraine today may be East Asia tomorrow.”

Russia’s invasion demonstrated that security in Europe and the Atlantic cannot be separated from security in the Indo-Pacific, he said.

East Asia faces overlapping concerns including North Korea’s nuclear and missile development, China’s growing military power and tensions across the Taiwan Strait.

Kishida said Japan’s vision of a free and open Indo-Pacific seeks to improve regional connectivity, promote prosperity, reject coercion and intimidation and uphold freedom and the rule of law.

Kishida stresses U.S. alliance and international rules

Addressing U.S. foreign policy under President Donald Trump, Kishida said “America First” should be regarded as a structural trend rather than a temporary development.

He said countries such as Japan, which have limited natural resources and relatively constrained domestic markets, depend on international law, multilateralism, free trade and the rule of law.

Kishida emphasized the importance of maintaining the Japan-U.S. alliance while preserving an international system governed by widely accepted rules.

Dialogue with China remains necessary

Kishida also called for continued dialogue with China despite security concerns and political tensions between Tokyo and Beijing.

China is Japan’s largest trading partner, while Japan remains one of China’s major economic partners, he said.

“That is precisely why dialogue is important,” Kishida said.

He recalled meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping twice during international gatherings while serving as prime minister. Kishida also held talks with Chinese Premier Li Qiang during meetings connected to Southeast Asian nations and a trilateral summit involving Japan, China and South Korea.

“It is regrettable that fewer people are now willing to engage in dialogue between Japan and China,” Kishida said.

He called for communication not only between governments but also through business, people-to-people exchanges, sports and culture.

Stable relations between Japan and China would serve both countries’ national interests and contribute to regional peace and stability, he said.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260626010009412

JERUSALEM — Nickolay Mladenov, the top diplomat overseeing the U.S.-brokered ceasefire in Gaza, said Wednesday the truce hinged on Hamas’ disarmament, a sticking point that has stalled progress on other fronts, including rebuilding the mostly destroyed enclave.

The high representative for President Trump’s International Board of Peace in Gaza, Mladenov, said months without progress implementing the deal benefited neither Israel nor Palestinians. He said the phased deal was paralyzed over Hamas not yet disarming, calling it “not negotiable.”

International mediators have long said disarmament is core to the ceasefire, to which Hamas has agreed, but no significant progress has been made toward it. The Palestinian militant group has sought to link any demilitarization to Israeli troop pullbacks. Israel’s military remains in control of more than half of Gaza.

“The only way that we believe that we can ensure that Israeli withdrawal takes place to the perimeter is if we have the full element of the plan unfolding in Gaza,” Mladenov said at a rare press conference in Jerusalem.

Mladenov stated plainly that the plan envisioned in the ceasefire was off to a rocky start. He also said conditions remain dire and miserable for the more than 2 million people in Gaza. He accused both sides of violating the ceasefire but said it had mostly held and staved off the return of full-scale war.

Disarmament is among the most challenging elements of the ceasefire. Hamas, whose founding charter calls for armed resistance against Israel, has been reluctant to give up its arsenal, including rockets, anti-tank missiles, and explosives.

Mladenov did not answer questions about what could lie ahead for Gaza in the absence of disarmament. He criticized Hamas for consolidating power in parts of Gaza under its control, saying it hoped “to squeeze better terms of a negotiation.”

He also said that he could envision a role for Hamas in postwar Gaza if it disarms.

“We are not asking Hamas to disappear as a political movement,” Mladenov told reporters.

Israeli leaders have said they want to destroy the militant group that has governed Gaza for two decades and orchestrated the attack on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing some 1,200 people and taking 251 as hostages.

Israel’s ensuing offensive has killed over 72,724 Palestinians, including at least 846 since a ceasefire took hold last October.

Mladenov’s remarks came as the Board of Peace faces scrutiny, with efforts to advance the phased ceasefire stalled.

The truce envisioned Hamas handing over its weapons, Israeli forces withdrawing and rebuilding destroyed swaths of the coastal enclave after more than two years of war.

Instead, the seven months since the ceasefire have seen Israel and Hamas trade accusations of violations. Aid groups say Israel has not allowed the promised amount of aid in. Hamas has not disarmed and remains in control of roughly half the strip.

Trump’s 20-point plan says that all of Hamas’ “military, terror and offensive infrastructure, including tunnels and weapon production facilities” in Gaza must be destroyed. It also says that weapons must be placed “permanently beyond use.”

Israel and the U.S. say this language is clear and that Hamas must surrender all of its weapons.

Hamas has sought to differentiate between “heavy” weapons, such as rockets, and “light” weapons like rifles and pistols, Hamas officials and mediators say, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the negotiations.

Israel has stepped up its attacks in Gaza in recent days, since the U.S.-Iran ceasefire, and many Palestinians fear a return of more airstrikes and full-scale war may be imminent.

Frankel and Metz write for the Associated Press.