Israel-Lebanon sign historic US-brokered framework: Can the 14-point deal finally deliver peace?

Israel and Lebanon have signed a United States-brokered framework agreement that both governments describe as the beginning of a long process towards ending years of conflict along their shared border.

Signed in Washington DC on Friday by the two countries' ambassadors in the presence of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the framework lays out a phased roadmap to peace.

Although the agreement marks one of the most significant diplomatic developments between Israel and Lebanon in years, neither side has presented it as a final peace deal.

Why did Israel and Lebanon agree to a deal now?

The agreement was formally signed by Israeli Ambassador to the United States Yechiel Leiter and Lebanese Ambassador to the United States Nada Hamadeh Moawad, with Rubio witnessing the ceremony.

More from Explainers

The US-Iran war may be over, but the real battle has just begun

When the guns fall silent, diplomacy must lead

The signing followed several days of negotiations aimed at finding a mechanism to reduce hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah and create conditions for a longer-term political settlement between Israel and Lebanon.

Speaking shortly before the agreement was signed, Rubio acknowledged that implementation would be far from straightforward. "Today we've taken the first step in what will be a difficult journey, without a doubt, but an important and an essential and a necessary one," Rubio said.

His remarks reflected the cautious tone adopted by all three governments. Rather than portraying the agreement as the conclusion of negotiations, officials repeatedly described it as the starting point for a much longer diplomatic process.

Later, the US State Department expanded on Washington's role in implementing the framework, announcing that the United States would establish a trilateral "Military Coordination Group for Lebanon."

According to Rubio, the body will facilitate implementation of the agreement and oversee coordination among the parties during the transition envisaged under the framework.

Rubio also said the United States would provide an immediate $100 million in humanitarian assistance in coordination with the United Nations while reaffirming its intention to strengthen the Lebanese Armed Forces.

Under existing US authorities and appropriations, Washington pledged more than $30 million to improve the Lebanese military's ability "to more effectively establish sovereignty throughout Lebanese territory."

"For Lebanon, this Framework provides a genuine pathway out of a long crisis," the US State Department said. "For Israel, it creates a verifiable path to removing the persistent threat on its northern border."

Those objectives largely mirror the priorities that have shaped negotiations in recent months. Lebanese officials have consistently sought the withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon and the restoration of Lebanese control over occupied territory.

Israeli officials, meanwhile, have insisted that any withdrawal must be linked to credible measures preventing Hezbollah from re-establishing military positions near Israel's northern frontier.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the agreement reflects that sequencing. According to him, Israeli forces will not immediately vacate every area currently under their control. Instead, he said the framework allows Israeli troops to remain in parts of southern Lebanon until Hezbollah has been disarmed.

He explained that the Lebanese army would gradually begin assuming responsibility for territory through an incremental process starting with two designated "pilot zones." Israeli withdrawals would occur only after those arrangements are implemented.

Following the signing ceremony, Leiter likewise stressed that Israeli redeployments would depend upon progress made by Lebanese authorities.

"To the degree that the Lebanese army performs in dismantling and disarming Hezbollah, we will proceed with additional pilot zones and the ultimate determination of an internationally recognized, secure, and agreed upon border," Leiter told reporters.

"Iran is out, Hezbollah is out, and the road to peace between Israel and Lebanon is in," Leiter said.

Lebanese officials, while welcoming the agreement, pointed out different priorities. Moawad described the framework as "a first step" towards restoring Lebanon's territorial integrity and state authority.

"This framework is a first step on the road to restoring Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity, securing a permanent and final cessation of hostilities, enabling our people to go back to their land and allowing all Lebanese to live in peace, security and prosperity," she said.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun echoed that position after the agreement was announced.

He said the framework should ultimately allow Lebanese citizens to return to "fully liberated" territory and rebuild their homes while ensuring there would be "no partner" in Lebanon's sovereignty.

Leiter spoke openly about the long-term aspiration. "Our language is we want to embrace Lebanon," he said.

"Our language is we want to get in our car in Tel Aviv and take a drive up to Beirut, and we want Beirut to come down and take a drive to Tel Aviv. That's where we're going. That's where we want to go."

He argued that achieving such a future depends upon Hezbollah no longer functioning as an armed organisation. "So it really depends on the Lebanese army," Leiter said. "It depends on the support the Lebanese army gets from the U.S. And we think it's going to be solid."

What has the latest Israel-Hezbollah conflict been faring?

The framework emerges against the backdrop of one of the deadliest periods of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah in recent years.

The conflict reportedly began after Hezbollah launched attacks against Israel in early March, shortly after the United States and Israel carried out military operations against Iran.

Another account accompanying the negotiations states that Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel days after Israel and the United States launched military action against Iran on February 28.

Those attacks quickly escalated into sustained exchanges involving Israeli air strikes and ground operations inside Lebanon. The fighting produced severe humanitarian consequences.

More than 4,000 people have been killed in Lebanon during Israeli military operations since March, while more than one million people have been displaced from their homes.

On the Israeli side, the latest hostilities resulted in the deaths of at least 32 soldiers and four civilians according to one official account. Another account associated with the negotiations states that at least 37 Israeli soldiers were killed in Lebanon or northern Israel during the fighting.

Hezbollah has not released official figures detailing its battlefield losses. However, Reuters reported on May 4 that several thousand Hezbollah fighters had been killed during the conflict.

Israel expanded its military presence inside Lebanese territory, describing the area under its control as either a "security zone" or "buffer zone." Israeli officials have argued that maintaining forces there allows them to prevent future Hezbollah attacks against communities in northern Israel.

Lebanese authorities, meanwhile, have consistently maintained that regaining those occupied areas remains one of Beirut's principal negotiating objectives.

Before negotiations resumed this week, Israel and Hezbollah had already agreed to halt fire under a ceasefire arrangement. However, that agreement did not result in a complete Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, with Israeli troops continuing to occupy parts of the area.

Violence also continued despite the ceasefire. On Friday, Israel announced that its military had killed seven Hezbollah members whom it said were operating near territory occupied by Israeli forces. Reuters said it could not independently verify the Israeli claim.

The same day, Israeli forces dropped leaflets over the town of Mansouri instructing residents to leave the area. Lebanese state media reported that this marked the first such evacuation order issued since the latest ceasefire came into effect.

A senior Lebanese military official said Israel had recently incorporated Mansouri into its occupation zone. According to the official, local farmers had continued entering and leaving the town to work their land but were no longer living there permanently.

Responding to reports of the leaflets, an Israeli military spokesperson described the move as a precaution rather than a new evacuation campaign.

The spokesperson said the military had issued what it called a "reminder" to civilians because "the area is within the security zone in which (Israeli) soldiers operate. It's a reminder not to be in the area so they won't be harmed."

What does the 14-point framework agreement contain?

The opening provision establishes the broader objective of the agreement. Israel and Lebanon affirm each other's right to exist peacefully as neighbouring sovereign states while expressing a shared intention to address the root causes of their conflict.

The framework also states that both governments aim to permanently end hostilities and formally conclude any existing state of war through direct bilateral negotiations facilitated by the United States.

Instead of requiring immediate implementation, the agreement introduces what it describes as a reciprocal sequence of actions. Under this approach, progress by one side is intended to trigger corresponding steps by the other.

The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) are expected to progressively restore effective sovereign authority across Lebanese territory, meeting verifiable milestones during the process. As those benchmarks are achieved, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) would gradually redeploy and withdraw from Lebanese territory.

To avoid creating sudden security gaps, implementation will begin through two mutually agreed "pilot zones" in southern Lebanon.

Within these initial areas, the Lebanese Armed Forces will assume full and exclusive responsibility for security once non-state weapons have been removed. Israeli troops would then withdraw from those locations, allowing damaged infrastructure to be repaired and displaced civilians to return under the authority of the Lebanese state.

If both governments agree that the model is working, additional pilot zones may be established later.

The framework's most consequential provision concerns Hezbollah and other armed organisations operating outside state control.

Lebanon commits to restoring the state's exclusive authority over the use of force by ensuring the "complete and verified disarmament of all non-state armed groups." It also undertakes to dismantle their military capabilities so that no organisation outside official state institutions retains a military or security role anywhere in Lebanon.

Closely linked to that commitment is another provision establishing that only Lebanon's recognised state institutions may determine questions of national defence, war and peace.

The agreement rejects the idea that any armed organisation outside government authority can independently claim responsibility for defending the country. Instead, it declares that Lebanon's official security institutions alone possess that authority.

For Israel, another section provides an explanation of its military posture throughout the conflict. The framework states that Israeli military operations inside Lebanon have been defensive responses to threats posed by non-state armed organisations, explicitly identifying Hezbollah.

It also records Israel's position that it has no territorial ambitions inside Lebanon and states that once the threat from cross-border attacks is permanently removed, there will no longer be any need for Israeli military operations or troop deployments on Lebanese soil.

Although the agreement focuses heavily on security arrangements, it also makes clear that neither country is surrendering its internationally recognised right to self-defence.

Instead, it specifies that Israel and Lebanon each retain their inherent right to individual self-defence under international law. At the same time, it stipulates that no third party may exercise that right on behalf of either state.

To supervise implementation of these security commitments, the agreement creates a new American-backed oversight mechanism. Known as the "Military Coordination Group for Lebanon," the body will oversee the implementation of the framework and coordinate between the parties throughout the transition.

Another section links future American military assistance directly to measurable performance by the Lebanese Armed Forces.

Washington commits to expanding the operational capabilities of Lebanon's military, but additional funding and equipment will be tied to an oversight programme requiring transparency, measurable milestones and demonstrated progress in enforcing the state's monopoly over armed force.

The framework then shifts from military issues to Lebanon's broader recovery. The United States pledges to work with international and Arab partners to mobilise humanitarian assistance, finance reconstruction projects, restore critical infrastructure and encourage economic investment aimed at helping Lebanon recover from years of conflict and instability.

To prevent reconstruction resources from being diverted, another provision introduces strict financial safeguards. The United States and Lebanon commit themselves to blocking financial flows benefiting individuals, organisations or entities affiliated with non-state armed groups.

Beirut also undertakes to employ all available legal mechanisms to prohibit such activity and ensure reconstruction funding does not reach militant organisations.

The final sections of the framework focus on diplomacy and confidence-building. Immediately following the signing, Israel and Lebanon will establish permanent bilateral working groups under American facilitation. Those groups will be responsible for negotiating a comprehensive peace and security treaty.

The framework also calls for a series of immediate confidence-building measures. These include ending hostile diplomatic initiatives against one another in international organisations, pursuing the recovery and return of human remains and facilitating the release of detainees.

How will the agreement be implemented on the ground?

Netanyahu has indicated that Israeli troops will not immediately leave every position currently held in southern Lebanon.

Instead, withdrawals will be tied directly to the Lebanese army's progress in dismantling Hezbollah's military infrastructure and assuming responsibility for areas vacated by Israeli forces.

The first stage will centre on the two agreed pilot zones. According to Netanyahu, these areas will allow the Lebanese army "to begin organizing to take control of territory," while Israeli forces withdraw from land occupied during the conflict.

Israel has consistently referred to much of that territory as either a "security zone" or a "buffer zone," arguing that maintaining forces there has enabled it to prevent Hezbollah attacks against northern Israeli communities.

Leiter reinforced the conditional nature of Israeli withdrawals following the signing ceremony. "To the degree that the Lebanese army performs in dismantling and disarming Hezbollah, we will proceed with additional pilot zones and the ultimate determination of an internationally recognised, secure, and agreed upon border," he said.

Washington's financial commitments are also designed to support this phased transition. In addition to the immediate $100 million humanitarian package announced by Rubio, the United States has committed more than $30 million under existing authorities to strengthen the Lebanese Armed Forces.

Rather than providing unconditional assistance, however, the framework ties future military support to measurable implementation benchmarks.

Alongside military assistance, Washington intends to coordinate humanitarian relief through the United Nations while encouraging wider international support for Lebanon's reconstruction and economic recovery.

Aoun has said the agreement should allow Lebanese citizens to return to "fully liberated" land and rebuild homes that were damaged or destroyed during the conflict while preserving Lebanon's exclusive sovereignty.

Whether those objectives can be achieved, however, depends heavily upon developments that extend beyond the governments that negotiated the agreement.

How has Hezbollah reacted to the framework?

The most immediate obstacle facing the framework is Hezbollah's outright rejection of its central security provisions. Unlike the governments of Israel, Lebanon and the United States, Hezbollah did not participate in the negotiations that produced the agreement.

The movement has long argued that its armed wing forms part of Lebanon's defence against Israel and has consistently opposed proposals requiring nationwide disarmament.

Following the signing ceremony, Hassan Fadlallah, a member of Hezbollah's parliamentary bloc, reiterated the organisation's position. He said Lebanese authorities "will not be able to enforce the agreement signed in Washington unless they go, with American support, to civil war."

According to reports carried by the pro-Iranian broadcaster Al Mayadeen, Fadlallah also warned that Hezbollah would confront any attempt by Lebanese authorities to implement the framework's commitments concerning the movement's weapons.

He also stated that Hezbollah would hold on to its weapons even more firmly, adding that the organisation's opposition was "serious" and that it would not allow authorities to implement their commitments on the ground.

In separate remarks carried by Beirut-based pan-Arab Al-Mayadeen TV, Fadlallah reiterated that Hezbollah rejects Lebanon's direct negotiations with Israel and insisted the organisation would not surrender its weapons.

He also described the Washington agreement as "an attempt to derail the Islamabad process," referring to the parallel negotiations between the United States and Iran.

Hezbollah's position reflects its longstanding interpretation of earlier international agreements. The organisation maintains that previous arrangements and United Nations resolutions require it to disarm only in the area south of the Litani River near Lebanon's border with Israel, rather than throughout the entire country.

The new framework goes considerably further by calling for the verified dismantling of all non-state armed groups across Lebanese territory.

How is this agreement different from the US-Iran negotiations?

The Israel-Lebanon framework is distinct from the interim agreement reached between the United States and Iran the previous week.

That separate arrangement established a 60-day negotiating period to address outstanding issues surrounding Tehran's nuclear programme amid Western concerns that Iran seeks military capabilities through the programme — an allegation Iran has consistently denied.

Lebanese officials were also careful to maintain an independent negotiating process.

According to information released alongside the agreement, Beirut was reluctant to have Iran negotiate on its behalf and instead pursued direct talks with Israel after fighting between Israel and Hezbollah escalated.

Hezbollah itself was excluded from those negotiations. Earlier attempts to negotiate ceasefires between Israel and Hezbollah had produced multiple agreements, but those arrangements ultimately failed to produce lasting implementation on the ground.

With inputs from agencies