Israel

Two Palestinian mothers believe a viral image of a bound Gaza detainee shows their missing son, leaving them desperate for answers. Israel acknowledges the photo is real but has not revealed the man’s identity.

In Fox News interview, Israeli prime minister lauds US alliance and argues that Ankara should not receive F-35 jets.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says his ties with US President Donald Trump are “fine”, dismissing reports of rifts between the two leaders over the ceasefire with Iran and Israel’s attacks in Lebanon.

In an interview with Fox News on Monday, Netanyahu heaped praise on the United States and Trump.

“America has been a tremendous force for good, and without America, there won’t be any democracy in the world, and there won’t be any freedom in the world,” he said.

The Israeli prime minister added that he and Trump see eye to eye on “just about everything”.

His comments come amid criticism by some members of the Israeli cabinet of the memorandum of understanding between the US and Iran that calls for a regional ceasefire, including in Lebanon.

Israel has refused to withdraw from Lebanon, insisting that it has the right to bomb the country at any time to respond to “threats”. An Israeli strike in southern Lebanon on Monday killed four civilians, including a teacher.

Netanyahu said there can be differences between the US and Israel, but the two countries are “model allies”.

“My relationship with the president is fine, and we have a way of ironing out our differences as allies who respect each other,” he said.

The prime minister confirmed he will soon visit the US again, but said no date has been set for the trip.

Asked about his agenda during the visit, Netanyahu took aim at Turkiye, saying that he will lobby against the transfer of F-35 jets to Ankara.

“I don’t think they should be given F-35s or the engines for their fighter jets because that’ll upset the power balance in the Middle East, which is ultimately guaranteed by Israeli air superiority, and also by, I think, by America’s posture in the Middle East,” he said.

Turkiye, a NATO ally of the US, has been an outspoken critic of Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Trump is set to visit Ankara later this week for a NATO summit.

Netanyahu attempted to draw a contrast between Israel and Turkiye.

“They didn’t lift a finger to help you in Iran. We did,” he told Fox News, a conservative US media network mostly watched by Trump voters. “We’re the model ally that fought next to your great soldiers.”

Netanyahu has called for the US to attack Iran for decades, leading to the US-Israel war on Iran that broke out on February 28, which proved to be overwhelmingly unpopular with American voters.

Some Israeli commentators and politicians have been escalating rhetoric against Turkiye, suggesting that the country is the next regional rival and target after Iran.

Turkiye’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan warned on Saturday against Israel’s efforts to undermine the US-Iran agreement.

“We are closely following the Israeli administration’s attempts to dynamite the deal,” he said. “The current war-addicted Israeli government must not be allowed to drown our geography in the smell of gunpowder and blood again.”

Millions of people have attended funeral prayers in Tehran for Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who was killed in a joint US-Israeli strike on February 28. Aerial video reveals the scale of the crowd.

Elyas Abu Safia says his father can barely breathe or speak after more than 555 days in Israeli prison.

The son of a prominent Palestinian doctor abducted and held by Israel without charge has issued an urgent appeal for his father’s release, warning that his health has sharply deteriorated after more than 555 days in prison, as a rights group warned that his life was in danger.

Elyas Abu Safia, the son of Dr Hussam Abu Safia, said in a video message on Sunday that his father, the director of Kamal Adwan Hospital in northern Gaza, showed signs of severe abuse after Israeli authorities transferred him to solitary confinement in a maximum-security prison.

“The day before yesterday, the lawyer Nasser Odeh managed to visit my father, where he told us painful details about this visit,” said Elyas, who is also a doctor.

“My father was unable to breathe. My father was unable to speak,” he said, adding: “His face was disfigured from the marks of torture and pain, and the blood he endured inside the prison, especially after the last court session held in Jerusalem.”

Israeli forces arrested Abu Safia at work on December 27, 2024, as they intensified their attacks on northern Gaza’s healthcare system as part of the genocidal war against Palestinians in Gaza. Two months earlier, an Israeli drone attack killed another of his sons, Ibrahim, at the entrance of the hospital where he worked.

Elyas accused Arab and Muslim leaders of abandoning his father.

“You deprived us even of your voices, your solidarity and your support, which should have been there from the start of the detention,” he said.

“But sadly, your silence is a betrayal and a crime, and complicity in torturing my father and the hostages inside Israeli prisons,” he added.

‘The most shocking testimony’

Physicians for Human Rights Israel warned that Abu Safiya’s life is in immediate danger after his transfer to the Rakefet section of Nitzan prison.

The group said lawyer Nasser Odeh visited Abu Safia on July 2 and documented severe injuries, signs of assault, difficulty breathing and repeated loss of consciousness. It said guards brought him into the visit with his hands and feet bound and surrounded him with masked officers.

Odeh also saw fresh bruises and injuries on Abu Safiya’s head, around his eyes, ears and neck. The wounds were so severe that the lawyer struggled to recognise him, the group said.

“The information we received raises serious and immediate concerns for Abu Safiya’s life. The lawyer’s testimony is among the most shocking we have heard since the beginning of the war: a man detained without charge tells his lawyer that he believes they will kill him, after he arrived for the visit injured, suffering from difficulty breathing, and on the verge of losing consciousness,” Naji Abbas, director of the Prisoners and Detainees Department at Physicians for Human Rights, told the official Palestinian news agency Wafa.

Israeli authorities have not filed charges against Abu Safia. They classified him as an “unlawful combatant”, a designation Israel has used to hold Palestinians for prolonged periods without trial.

Physicians for Human Rights has demanded his release, along with other imprisoned Palestinian doctors. In March, United Nations experts also called on Israel to free Abu Safia immediately and ensure he receives medical care.

He is one of 14 Palestinian doctors from Gaza currently held by Israel without charge.

Iran’s late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and members of his family were killed in a joint US-Israeli air strike in February.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his far-right Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich have offered the clearest signal yet that they are considering the establishment of new Jewish settlements on what remains of the Gaza Strip after almost three years of their country’s genocidal war against Palestinians in the enclave.

Last Monday, Smotrich, who made his continued participation in the ruling coalition conditional on being granted increased control over Israel’s settlement enterprise, told reporters that his ministry had prepared plans for three settlements in northern Gaza, and that all that was needed to move forward was the green light from Netanyahu.

The following day, Netanyahu came close to providing it. Speaking on Israel’s staunchly right-wing Channel 14, he refused to rule out the prospect of settlements in Gaza.

“The question is whether you prefer to do or to talk,” the prime minister replied cryptically when asked whether the establishment of settlements was a possibility. “And yes, I prefer not to address it.”

Israel’s current settlements – in the occupied West Bank and occupied East Jerusalem – are illegal under international law.

In clearing the way for any future settlements in Gaza – and for what Netanyahu euphemistically told Channel 14 viewers was the “voluntary migration” of its remaining population, a process widely characterised by international jurists as ethnic cleansing – Israel has killed more than 73,000 of its occupants.

At the same time, Israel has been accused by United Nations-backed experts of deliberately imposing a famine on survivors in Gaza and, most recently, of furthering its genocide in Gaza through the deliberate targeting of children.

The degree to which preparations are under way for the physical establishment of any settlements in Gaza – which previously had 21 illegal settlements before the Israeli government decided to dismantle them in 2005 – is difficult to ascertain. The area north of Gaza City has been largely razed by Israel, with its deliberate campaign to demolish Palestinian homes and institutions, destroying almost everything not hit with bombs from the air.

Supporters of settlements in Gaza see that now empty land as a perfect opportunity to cement a buffer between Israel and Gaza.

With elections due in Israel, it is beneficial for politicians such as Smotrich and Netanyahu to insinuate that this is now the plan.

“The Israeli public has been subjected to almost endless incitements to genocide since October 7,” said Neve Gordon, an Israeli professor at Queen Mary University of London. “People who watch legacy media in Israel have no understanding of the level of destruction in Gaza, or the kind of suffering that has gone on there.

“There are even spots, tourist spots, where some people in Israel go to watch the bombing. This is the constituency that statements like Smotrich’s are designed to appeal to. These are the people who would like to see more settlements in Gaza, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take it seriously ” he said. “[But] this isn’t just rhetoric. There is a definite and consistent push from across much of Israel’s politics to resettle the Gaza Strip.”

A history of ethnic cleansing

A growing number of hardline religious Israelis have been seeking to resettle the Gaza Strip since the 2005 disengagement. Since then, analysts and historians have described concerted efforts by those supporting settlements to capture the institutions of Israeli public life, gaining dominant voices in the education system, the media and other areas of government.

Organisations such as the far-right settler group Nachala have openly championed the resettlement of the enclave. Months into Israel’s genocidal war, Nachala held a conference explicitly promoting Israel’s return to Gaza, entitled ”Settlement Brings Security and Victory”. It was attended by numerous government ministers, including Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir.

Despite what critics describe as his success in establishing settlements on a scale unparalleled since the 1990s, Smotrich continues to struggle in the polls. His Religious Zionist party may not secure enough votes in the next election – which must be before the end of October – to meet the minimum threshold to get into parliament. That perhaps explains why Smotrich is eager to inflate the prospects of settlements in Gaza and attract more support from the Israeli right-wing.

Political advantage

The irony is curious for observers such as Orly Noy, the editor of the Hebrew-language Local Call magazine.

Smotrich “has been the most effective member of the cabinet in promoting the interests of the settlers in the West Bank”, she said. “He has really made a revolution in that sense,” referring to the judicial, economic, and infrastructure overhauls initiated under Smotrich’s watch, that he appears to be receiving little credit for among his base.

The stakes for Netanyahu are potentially more dramatic, analysts pointed out. Currently on trial on multiple corruption charges, the PM faces a jail sentence if found guilty.

Similarly, anger over his apparent determination not to hold an independent inquiry into his own government’s failings in the October 7 attack runs high, perhaps giving him a reason to suggest that he will move forward with building settlements and expelling Palestinians from Gaza.

“Look, if you want to distinguish yourself from the rest of the field ahead of the election, your time is now,” political analyst Ori Goldberg said. “This is your moment, and, if you want to propose imposing further hardship onto Palestinians, there is absolutely no Jewish member of [parliament] – apart from the [left-wing member of parliament] Ofer Cassif – who is going to oppose you.

“People don’t care anymore,” he said of the chances of the settlement of Gaza receiving any resistance from Israelis. “There’s just nothing [on the suffering in Gaza]. People have grown indifferent. There’s just a big black hole.”

Complicity

While the Israeli government may have no domestic qualms when it comes to building settlements in Gaza, it does have to contend with the international backlash – and that may be why the project does not move beyond the planning stage.

But would Israel face any real lasting consequences from building settlements in Gaza?

In the eyes of many, the Israeli government’s freedom to act comes from the unwavering diplomatic and military support of the US, as well as the financial support of Europe which, despite its occasional criticism, remains Israel’s foremost trading partner.

“In terms of international reaction,” author and fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, Hugh Lovatt said of the prospect of settlement in Gaza, “from 2023 onwards we’ve seen the greatest expansion of settlements since the [1990s] Oslo Accords, as well as plans to render the two-state solution obsolete”.

“And, while there’s been some criticism, there’s been very little action,” Lovatt said. “I don’t know if that would be any different were it to happen in Gaza. It’s true that Gaza has been the focus of a great deal of international – and specifically US – attention since the ceasefire that the West Bank has not.”

However, whether that attention would act as a check on Israel’s attempts to expand its settlements is unclear.

“Would Israel risk such a blatant move to block Trump’s Gaza plan? I’m not sure,” he said of the US president’s plan for Gaza, which while heavily criticised for allowing Israel to continue its presence in the Palestinian territory, makes no mention of Israeli settlements.

“And while Europe has a very poor track record so far, an expansion of Israeli settlements to Gaza could push European states to act,” he said.

The Israel-Lebanon framework agreement “threatens to betray the victims of war crimes” in Lebanon, according to six prominent human rights and media freedom organisations.

In a joint statement released on Friday by Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the Lebanese Center for Human Rights (CLDH), Legal Agenda, Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and the Union of Journalists in Lebanon, they warned that parts of the agreement “appear to be aimed at preventing victims of serious international crimes from seeking justice before international forums”.

The organisations pointed out that clauses 3 and 13 of the agreement, brokered by and signed in the United States on June 26, were particularly concerning as they would “prevent Lebanon and Israel from having recourse to international courts, including the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice”.

The six organisations warned that “Clause 3 further violates international law and the prohibition of forced displacement, conditioning the return of residents to specified zones along the border, currently occupied by Israel, to the ‘successful disarmament of non-state armed groups and dismantlement of their infrastructure”.

“Under international humanitarian law, people must be allowed to return once hostilities have ended or the reasons for their displacement cease to exist,” their joint statement said.

The organisations said that Clause 13 was particularly concerning as it prevents civilians from “actions in international political or legal fora [forums]”. This comes after “months of hostilities resulting in immense civilian harm, including as a result of war crimes, violations of international humanitarian law, and gross human rights abuses”.

Many in Lebanon have protested and criticised the government for signing the agreement with Israel.

Many critics of the framework deal, which does not force the Israeli army to withdraw from the areas it occupies, are people most impacted by the war, which has killed at least 4,300 people, injured over 12,000 and forced hundreds of thousands from their homes since early March.

The six organisations said the US-brokered agreement appears to “contradict the countries’ international legal obligations to pursue accountability for serious international crimes committed on their territories,” although it “does not appear to commit Israel to halt any initiatives in international forums against Hezbollah”.

“Victims of war crimes and other violations deserve justice,” said Agnes Callamard, Secretary General of Amnesty International. “Any agreement that fails to center their rights to justice, accountability and reparations will falter underneath the very impunity it builds.”

Ghida Frangieh, head of litigation at Legal Agenda, added: “Accountability and respect for international law are not bargaining chips. They are legal obligations. International law is clear: States cannot waive or negotiate away their obligation to investigate and prosecute the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. Nor can states extinguish individual rights to truth, justice and reparation”.

But Lebanon’s President said on Friday that the framework deal with Israel “does not legitimise the continued Israeli occupation of Lebanon”, but instead empowers the Lebanese army to extend its authority across the country’s territory.

Joseph Aoun made the remarks during a meeting with a delegation from the Association of Lebanese Universities, the Lebanese Order of Physicians and the Lebanese Maronite Order, according to a statement from the presidency.

“Our sovereign decision to separate our track from the Iranian-US track is a problem for some who have become accustomed to being under guardianship that controls us, decides for us and negotiates on our behalf,” Aoun said, adding that the Lebanese army will “fully assume its responsibilities in achieving security and stability in the south after the withdrawal of Israeli forces”.

Meanwhile, with a “ceasefire” in Lebanon agreed on June 21 as part of a deal between Iran and the US, and the Israel-Lebanon framework agreement signed five days later, many displaced Lebanese have been returning to their homes in southern Lebanon.

In a report on Thursday, the International Organisation for Migration (IOM) said 646,107 IDPs (internally displaced persons) have begun returning to their communities, while about 500,000 others remain displaced, based on data collected with local authorities since June 22.

Lebanese authorities said they were working to remove informal encampments in and around capital Beirut and to reduce the number of official shelters.

However, many people in southern Lebanon said they have nowhere to return to, as dozens of towns and villages near the border have been destroyed by Israeli forces.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said the military “will not leave” southern Lebanon as long as Hezbollah remains a “threat”. Hezbollah has rejected the deal with Israel as “null and void”, saying any attempt to link an Israeli withdrawal to its disarmament crossed “all red lines”.

Caracas, July 2, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – The Venezuelan government has welcomed an official Israeli delegation in the first significant bilateral engagement since Caracas severed ties with Tel Aviv in 2009.

In the wake of the devastating June 24 double earthquake, a joint civilian-military mission led by Israeli diplomat Yoed Magen landed in the South American country on Wednesday.

In a social media message, the IDF claimed its “humanitarian delegation” would “support recovery efforts” and share Israel’s “experience in emergency situations.”

The Israeli government confirmed the deployment of a “preliminary team” via its Spanish-language X account and announced further arrivals in the coming days.

“The remaining delegation members will incorporate themselves in the coming days. Expert teams will work alongside local authorities and collaborate in the reconstruction efforts,” the statement read.

Venezuelan Foreign Minister Yván Gil “received and thanked” the Israeli mission on behalf of the acting Delcy Rodríguez administration, claiming that  it was part of “international technical cooperation and support for the Venezuelan people.” In a Thursday night press conference, Rodríguez expressed her appreciation for the arrival of the “highly trained and professional” Israeli team and confirmed they were meeting with Venezuelan authorities to help evaluate damaged infrastructure.

The Israeli delegation includes a military contingent headed by Brigadier General Elad Edri, chief of staff of the IDF Home Front Command. It held meetings with Venezuelan Public Works Minister Juan José Ramírez and with Francisco Garcés, the head of a newly formed presidential commission tasked with evaluating the safety and habitability of infrastructure following the tremors.

Israeli nonprofits IsraAid and NATAN Worldwide Disaster Relief had previously announced they were dispatching teams to Venezuela but their arrival has not been confirmed. Social media footage has shown the use of Israeli-made drones to conduct 3D-mappings of flattened buildings and locate possible survivors under the rubble.

The dispatch of the Israeli mission dovetails with a significant post-earthquake US military deployment. The Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) has reported 900 military personnel on the ground, while US forces are running logistics at the Simón Bolívar International Airport and La Guaira port.

Following the January 3 US military strikes and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, the acting Rodríguez administration has fast-tracked a diplomatic rapprochement with Washington and radically reoriented its geopolitical alignments. During the recent US-Israel war against Iran, Caracas did not express support for its longtime ally in Tehran, instead offering public backing for US Gulf allies such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.

Former Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez severed ties with Tel Aviv in 2009, fiercely denouncing Operation Cast Lead as “genocide” and voicing solidarity with the Palestinian people.

Maduro maintained his predecessor’s policy position excoriating Israeli military occupation and war crimes in Gaza and Lebanon, as well as the June 2025 Twelve-Day War against Iran. The Maduro government publicly endorsed South Africa’s activation of the Genocide Convention against Israel at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in 2024.

The arrival of an Israeli mission has drawn backlash from the Chavista grassroots. Hindu Anderi, spokesperson for the Platform of Solidarity with the Palestinian cause, slammed the “hypocrisy” of Tel Aviv claiming the mantle of humanitarianism amid its ongoing genocides in Gaza and Lebanon.

“The Zionist regime wants to whitewash its record through rescue teams […] after condemning the Palestinian people to rubble,” she wrote on social media.

Venezuelan officials have reported 2,595 people killed in the earthquake as of July 2, more than 12,000 injured, and over 15,000 displaced families. The search and rescue operations have been backed by more than 4,000 foreign specialists from 30 countries.

Edited and with additional reporting by Lucas Koerner in Caracas.

Students and supporters of a Luxembourg teacher fired over social media posts held a demonstration for her this week. Fatima Kurtic was fired in October over a post deemed anti-Israel. She told Al Jazeera about the motivations and costs behind her pro-Palestinian activism.

Israel has rejected a UN Commission report that says its army deliberately targets Palestinian children. But there are cases of children being shot by precision weapons, making it difficult to argue they were accidents.
Al Jazeera’s @emmawithrow explains.

Maritime monitoring service TankerTrackers.com said on Thursday that a ship which Iranian media reported had run aground in the Strait of Hormuz has in fact been stuck in the same spot since March and is part of an operation managed by the notorious Iranian oil magnate Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani.

Here is what we know about Shamkhani, whom the US and EU allege is a central figure in Iranian and Russian shadow fleet operations, generating billions of dollars of oil revenues for both, and what happened to his ship in the Hormuz strait.

What do we know about the stranded ship?

On Thursday, TankerTrackers.com reported that the ship that Iranian media said had run aground in the Strait of Hormuz after using a “US-suggested route” has actually been stuck in the same spot since March.

It identified the vessel as the Arista, and reported that while it is Comoros-flagged, it is in fact part of an operation managed by the sanctioned Iranian oil magnate Shamkhani.

Who is Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani and what are the allegations against him?

Shamkhani is an Iranian oil shipping magnate who has multiple Western sanctions imposed on him. He is the son of the late Ali Shamkhani, a senior political adviser to Iran’s former Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Ali Shamkhani led the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) for a decade until 2023, making him the second-longest-serving security chief since 1979 after former President Hassan Rouhani, who was SNSC secretary for nearly 16 years.

He was reportedly killed in the first Israeli-US strikes on Tehran on February 28 , which triggered the war with Iran and also killed Khamenei, whose funeral begins tomorrow.

In March, the Sarajevo-based Organised Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) reported that following an investigation, Mohammad Hossein Shamkhani and his brother had used aliases and Caribbean “golden passports” to amass a $29m million property portfolio in Dubai.

The US Treasury, which has sanctioned the Shamkhani shipping empire, says it is part of a massive Iranian and Russian oil smuggling ring and that the Comoros‑flagged Arista aground in Hormuz is part of that network.

How does Shamkhani’s oil shipping operation work?

According to the US Treasury, the Shamkhani network makes use of “front” companies to buy Iranian and Russian oil for which it falsifies shipping documents. It switches the oil between vessels frequently via its shipping operations and sells the oil on to buyers who pay for it via their own front companies to obscure the flow of money.

Additional profits are funnelled through hedge funds and other money-laundering operations, the US Treasury alleges.

It said Shamkhani relies on a mix of crude oil, oil product and liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) tankers to generate billions of dollars for the Iranian and Russian regimes.

According to the European Commission, Shamkhani “uses the company Milavous Group Ltd to blend crude oil with various petroleum products from Russia and to rebrand for exporting purposes, thereby concealing their origin”.

Shamkhani is not known to have responded publicly to these allegations.

What sanctions have been imposed on Shamkhani?

Shamkhani was first sanctioned by the US last July, amid a large number of Iran-related sanctions. In April, the US Treasury Department announced additional sanctions on Shamkhani’s network.

“Treasury is moving aggressively with Economic Fury by targeting regime elites like the Shamkhani family that attempt to profit at the expense of the Iranian people,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said.

A statement from the US Treasury added that Shamkhani “heads a multi-billion dollar Iranian and Russian petroleum sales empire that enriches a family connected to the highest echelons of the Iranian regime at the expense of the Iranian people”.

The European Union sanctions tracker website says Shamkhani is also subject to EU sanctions, describing him as “a businessperson active in the Russian oil trade and a central player in Russia’s so-called ‘shadow fleet’.”

Russia’s shadow fleet is a network of hundreds of ageing, poorly regulated oil tankers that Russia uses to export crude and fuel while evading Western sanctions imposed after its invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

An August last year, the UK government also announced sanctions against Shamkhani including an asset freeze, director disqualification and travel ban. Minister for the Middle East Hamish Falconer said: “The UK is announcing sanctions against those who operate on behalf of Iran, fuelling its attempts to undermine stability in the Middle East and global security.

“Iran’s reliance on revenues from trading networks and connected organisations enables it to carry out its destabilising activities, including supporting proxies and partners across the region and facilitating state threats on UK soil.”

Gaza’s first women’s amputee football team is reclaiming a space that war tried to take from them, challenging stigma around women and people with disabilities in sport.

The US and Israel have signed a deal allocating land for a permanent US embassy in West Jerusalem, years after a temporary one was established during Trump’s first term in office. The move is yet another blow to the hopes of a future Palestinian capital.

US president says a meeting with Iran will take place in Doha today, but Tehran says there are no plans for talks in the coming days.

Washington and Tehran have agreed to stop attacks and renew talks in the Qatari capital, Doha, Axios reports.

Rats are invading displacement camps across Gaza, where piles of garbage, overflowing sewage and overcrowded shelters are worsening a public health crisis. Doctors report more severe skin diseases as families struggle without proper sanitation or adequate medical care.

Beirut, Lebanon – After the governments of Lebanon and Israel on Friday signed a United States-brokered framework agreement following months of direct negotiations, protesters took to the streets of the Lebanese capital to express their anger at the deal.

Many of the demonstrators waved flags of the Iran-backed group Hezbollah, which has been militarily confronting Israel’s ongoing invasion and occupation of large swaths of southern Lebanon.

Israel and Hezbollah have been fighting since October 2023, with varying levels of intensity, but the former has twice escalated the conflict – first in September 2024 and then nearly four months ago.

Some of the harshest critics of the framework, which does not force the Israeli army to withdraw from the areas it occupies, have been those most deeply impacted by Israel’s war, which has killed more than 4,200 people and forced hundreds of thousands from their homes since early March.

“After everything my family, my village, the south, and Dahiyeh have endured – the destruction, the displacement, the grief and the loss – it is incredibly difficult for me to accept an agreement with the same state that carried out the military actions that devastated our communities,” said Ali Zaytoun, a resident of Beirut’s southern suburbs, known as Dahiyeh.

Zaytoun, who runs a popular Instagram account called History of Dahieh, said he had been displaced multiple times due to Israeli attacks.

“Imagine someone destroys your home and your life, and then you’re expected to simply move on as if nothing happened,” said Zaytoun. “My protest is about remembering those who suffered, standing up for my community, and expressing that this agreement does not reflect the justice or respect that people who lived through this war deserve.”

A new Oslo?

The Israeli intensification on March 2 came after Hezbollah fired on Israel for the first time in more than a year following the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in a joint US-Israeli air attack on Tehran two days earlier, and as a response to more than 10,000 Israeli violations of a ceasefire reached in November 2024.

On the same day, the Lebanese government declared Hezbollah’s military activities illegal and later tried – unsuccessfully – to expel the Iranian ambassador.

Its position was that Hezbollah’s actions invited Israel’s wrath in a war fought on behalf of Iran and not the people of Lebanon.

Hezbollah, however, continued fighting Israel in southern Lebanon, where the Israeli army has established what it calls a “security zone” that goes as deep as 10km (6.2 miles) into the country.

As attacks continued, Lebanon’s government entered the United States-brokered negotiations with Israel, despite Hezbollah’s objections.

The final text of the 14-point Washington agreement states Israel has no claim to Lebanese territory and that the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) will eventually be the authority in southern Lebanon, “pending the verified disarmament of” non-state armed groups such as Hezbollah.

Proponents point to Israel recognising Lebanon’s authority over its own territory, though critics say the framework relies too heavily on the US – Israel’s main military and diplomatic backer and a signatory to the deal – to enforce it.

“The United States is unlikely to act as a neutral mediator and will almost certainly align with Israeli positions whenever disputes arise over the interpretation or implementation of the agreement,” said Karim Emile Bitar, a professor of international relations at the Saint Joseph University of Beirut.

“This creates a fundamentally asymmetric negotiating environment in which Lebanon has little leverage and few effective guarantees.”

Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem declared the agreement “null and void”, calling it “humiliating, shameful, and a surrender of sovereignty”, while Hassan Fadlallah, a Hezbollah lawmaker, warned of “internal conflict” in Lebanon.

Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri called for calm but also declared that the deal was an attempt to incite strife.

Those who backed the government said it had originally little choice but to enter direct negotiations, given its limited leverage in a war where Israel has technological superiority and unwavering US support.

Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam wrote on social media after the agreement’s signing that it “aims to achieve Israel’s withdrawal from all Lebanese territories”, while President Joseph Aoun called it “a first step” towards restoring Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Still, the final terms of the deal were criticised by many analysts.

“This framework agreement essentially mirrors the reality of the military and political balance on the ground, which is decisively tilted in Israel’s favour,” said Bitar.

Bitar said the agreement was reminiscent of the Oslo Accords, a series of US-brokered agreements signed by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Israel in the 1990s.

“We see a similar pattern here: Israeli negotiators seek recognition and get the other side to relinquish leverage while offering no binding timetable or reciprocal obligations,” he added.

On Saturday, Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz insisted soldiers will remain in Lebanon until Hezbollah is disarmed.

US reliance

Days before the signing of the Washington framework, Iran and the US agreed on a memorandum of understanding (MoU) that aims to end the war launched by the US and Israel against Iran in late February.

The MoU declared, among other things, “the immediate and permanent termination of military operations on all fronts, including Lebanon”, between the two countries and their allies.

Lebanon’s inclusion in the MoU was reportedly an Iranian priority, while a “deconfliction cell” was formed to bolster the supposed ceasefire in the country.

Throughout the war and the period of negotiations, Lebanon’s government has tried to separate itself from Iran – but some said it may have gone too far in the other direction.

“We are seeing the confirmation of what Hezbollah has been warning all along. Not because Hezbollah got it right, but because the Lebanese state got it so wrong,” said Lebanese writer Elia Ayoub.

“I understand the need to not depend on Iran, but what we’ve instead done is become even more dependent on the US than we’ve previously been,” added Ayoub, the founder of the podcast The Fire These Times.

“And it’s the US that has been bankrolling Israel’s genocide in Palestine and war crimes in Lebanon,” Ayoub added.

Analysts also questioned whether the government would be able to implement the deal.

“It appears that the Lebanese side has come under significant US pressure to sign an agreement that is very likely to remain little more than ink on paper, and very unlikely to be implemented in any meaningful way,” said Bitar.

Karim Safieddine, a nonresident fellow with the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy, said the framework left the Lebanese government with “very little agency”.

“It’s Israel imposing a deal,” he added. “It’s very clear what this deal is. It’s just a surrender agreement.”

At the same time, some pointed to similarities to the 2024 ceasefire agreement, expressing doubt whether Israel will be incentivised to respect the framework.

“It’s one thing to sign a declaration of intent; it’s another thing to have it implemented, and I can see all kinds of problems emerging from this,” said Nicholas Blanford, a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council and author of a book on Hezbollah.

Last year, Israel repeatedly complained that LAF’s efforts to disarm Hezbollah were either too slow or ineffective. The US often sided with Israel despite diplomatic attempts from European and other officials encouraging it to support LAF.

In a call with his US counterpart, President Donald Trump, on Saturday, Aoun said Lebanon “would assume its responsibilities” in implementing the framework and expressed hope Washington would help ensure that commitments ‌are fulfilled, particularly by pressing Israel to pull out from the areas it occupies.

Point 9 of the agreement states Lebanon’s government commits to a “rigorous, performance-based program to enable the capacity of the LAF to assert full military and security control within Lebanon … to implement the disarmament of all non-state armed groups”.

This provision has some in Lebanon worried about potential confrontations between LAF and Hezbollah, but Blanford said the possibility of a large escalation is currently not likely.

“The Lebanese army and the government are unwilling to use force against Hezbollah,” he said. “Forcibly trying to disarm a group that is refusing to disarm is an act of war. And I think the Lebanese army and the Lebanese government would be extremely wary of that.”

Hezbollah calls the deal a surrender as Israeli forces stay put and continue striking the south.

Israel has resumed air strikes on southern Lebanon, only days after signing a US-brokered agreement meant to end its war with the country.

The strikes came on Sunday, two days after the framework was signed in Washington following five rounds of talks.

Each side is presenting the same document as a victory on its own terms, and the deal has been rejected by Hezbollah and by far-right Israelis, raising immediate doubts over whether it can hold.

Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency (NNA) reported a series of attacks in the south on Sunday, a day after the Lebanese Ministry of Health said one person was killed in an Israeli attack there, the first death since the deal was signed.

Israeli aircraft were also active, with NNA reporting drones flying over the northeastern city of Baalbek and warplanes staging what residents described as a mock raid over nearby highlands.

Israel said its forces were targeting members of Hezbollah, the Lebanese armed group, near the buffer zone its troops occupy inside the country.

The Israeli military also announced that one of its soldiers had been killed in combat in the south. It named him as Captain David Hazutt, 21, a platoon commander in the Golani Brigade, an elite infantry unit, and said a second soldier was lightly wounded.

Israel’s military chief approved continued operations in the zone, saying they were in line with the ceasefire.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday called the agreement “historic” and “a massive blow to Iran and Hezbollah”.

An agreement was struck between Lebanon and Israel on Friday in Washington, which was described cautiously by United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio as “the beginning of the beginning”.

At the time, Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam said that the agreement “aims to achieve Israel’s withdrawal from all Lebanese territories”.

The text appears not to require Israel to unconditionally withdraw from Lebanon, instead linking any pullback to the disarmament of Hezbollah.

Defence Minister Israel Katz said on Saturday that Israeli forces were preparing for an extended stay in the buffer zone, and would remain as long as the group held on to its weapons.

Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem rejected the deal in a statement on Saturday, calling it “humiliating” and “a surrender of sovereignty” and saying his fighters would not leave the battlefield.

Hassan Fadlallah, a Hezbollah member of parliament, said on Sunday that any move by the Lebanese army to enforce the agreement would push the country towards internal conflict, as supporters of the group protested across the capital against the deal.

Itamar Ben-Gvir, Israel’s far-right national security minister, said the deal handed Hezbollah a “lifeline” and dismissed the idea that Lebanon’s army could disarm the group. He said he had opposed the agreement in cabinet for weeks and would continue to do so.

The war began on March 2, when Hezbollah fired rockets at Israel in response to the killing of Iran’s supreme leader in US-Israeli strikes.

Israel answered with heavy air raids and a ground invasion. More than 4,200 people have been killed in Lebanon since then, according to the country’s Health Ministry.

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Sunday that Washington should force Israel to stop its strikes and pull out of the areas it occupies in Lebanon, citing a separate understanding he said was binding on both Israel and the United States.

US president threatens to ‘militarily complete the job’ as US strikes Iran over ship attacks.

Videos show Israeli settlers, protected by Israeli soldiers, trying to seize a house under construction on the outskirts of the town of Qabalan, just south of Nablus, in the occupied West Bank.

June 27 (UPI) — Israel and Lebanon have created a framework for a cease-fire, though Hezbollah is already rejecting it because it calls for disarming the organization.

The neighboring countries signed a cease-fire deal in Washington, D.C., Friday without Hezbollah’s input. The deal says that Israel will withdraw from Lebanon if Hezbollah is disarmed. But Hezbollah leader Naim Kassem said the group will keep fighting until Israel is forced to leave Lebanon.

It’s unclear how Lebanon plans to force Hezbollah to disarm.

Israel then attacked Nabatieh al-Fawqa in southern Lebanon Saturday, Al Jazeera reported.

“The important principle established in the agreement is that there will be no redeployment by Israel in southern Lebanon, no withdrawal, as long as the terrorist organization Hezbollah is not disarmed throughout Lebanon, and the safety of the residents of the north is guaranteed,” Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz said in a video statement Saturday evening.

“This is the basic condition to which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and I have pledged and which we are being implemented,” he said.

Israel said it warned its military to plan for an extended stay.

“The test will be in implementing the agreement, and many more challenges are expected,” Katz said. “The Prime Minister and I have instructed the IDF to prepare for an extended stay in the security zone, and to deploy accordingly to protect IDF soldiers and remove threats from northern communities.”

Hezbollah supporters protested in Beirut after the agreement was announced.

A former U.S. diplomat told Al Jazeera that the cease-fire deal benefits Israel more and could be dangerous for Lebanon.

“In the end, I don’t think it will achieve peace. It’s a formula for an open-ended struggle. In the long run, it’s not even really good for Israel, although right now they feel like they have the upper hand,” Middle-East expert Nabeel Khoury said.

But the agreement will allow Israeli troops to return home.

“Essentially, these demands that the Lebanese armed forces do the work that the Israelis couldn’t do, or it proved too costly for the Israelis to do. They want the Lebanese army to do their bidding,” Khoury said.

“If the Lebanese army can go after Hezbollah, all over Lebanon, is what is being demanded of them, and the Israelis simply lend air support, then this is advantageous for Israel,” he added.

The cease-fire framework calls for Israel to initially withdraw from two small areas called pilot zones. But it didn’t say where those areas are. Then, the Lebanese army will gradually take over security for the areas.

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.”