In Washington on June 26, 2026, Israel and Lebanon signed a framework agreement after four days of negotiations

In Washington on June 26, 2026, Israel and Lebanon signed a framework agreement after four days of negotiations mediated by the United States. The ceremony took place at the U.S. Department of State: the document was signed by Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Yehiel Leiter, and Lebanon’s ambassador to the U.S., Nada Hamade Moawad, with the participation of the American side.

It is important to understand the main point: this is not a full-fledged peace treaty and not an immediate end to the conflict.

This is a framework for further trilateral work by the U.S., Israel, and Lebanon. The text of the agreement was not disclosed at the time of publication, and the main details are conveyed through statements by participants and reports by journalists citing government sources.

For Israel, the central point is this: the IDF will not leave the security zone in southern Lebanon until the complete disarmament of Hezbollah and other terrorist structures that may threaten northern Israel. In the Israeli version, this means maintaining control within the so-called ‘yellow line’ — even if on some maps it is marked differently.

For the residents of Kiryat Shmona, Metula, Nahariya, Shlomi, and other settlements in northern Israel, this is not abstract diplomacy. The question is extremely practical: will families be able to return to normal life without the risk of new rocket attacks, drones, and militant infiltration across the border.

What Israel retains

According to Israeli sources, Israel will retain freedom of military action throughout the security zone to eliminate threats of any kind. This is one of the key elements of the agreement: even during the diplomatic process, the IDF reserves the right to act against armed infrastructure, militants, weapons depots, and other threats.

‘Yellow line’ remains the main security condition

The meaning of the Israeli position is simple: first, the real disarmament of Hezbollah, then the discussion of further steps.

Not the other way around.

That is why the agreement does not look like a concession in the classical sense. Israel does not commit to leaving the entire southern Lebanese zone on a schedule. The formula is based on a verifiable result: if the territory is cleared of Hezbollah’s military infrastructure, if the Lebanese army truly takes control, if the threat to northern Israel decreases — then further stages are possible.

In the middle of this story, it is important not to lose the main Israeli context: NANews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency considers such agreements primarily through the question of the security of Israeli citizens, not through beautiful diplomatic language. For Jerusalem, the signature in Washington is not important, but whether Hezbollah will actually be pushed back, disarmed, and deprived of the opportunity to once again turn southern Lebanon into a staging ground against Israel.

Two pilot zones and the role of the Lebanese army

A separate block of the agreement concerns two pilot zones where the new mechanism should be tested: the IDF withdraws from limited areas, and control is transferred to the Lebanese army. According to Axios reports, one zone is located north of the Litani River, the other south of it. American military personnel are to participate in verifying that there is no Hezbollah presence in these areas.

This is an important point.

For Lebanon, such a formula allows talking about the restoration of sovereignty. For Israel, it is a test of whether the Lebanese army can control the territory not on paper, but on the ground.

If the first zones work, the process may continue. If Hezbollah retains weapons, infrastructure, or hidden presence there, Israel will have an argument against further troop withdrawal.

Why the agreement does not suit Hezbollah and Iran

Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Yehiel Leiter, presented the agreement as a document in which ‘Iran is outside, Hezbollah is outside, and the road to peace between Israel and Lebanon is inside.’ This formula reflects the Israeli logic: negotiations should be between states, not with an armed proxy structure of Iran.

U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the signing the first important step but emphasized that much work remains ahead. Essentially, Washington achieved a diplomatic result that can be presented as a move towards stabilization, but the problem itself is still far from being resolved.

The Lebanese side, for its part, calls the agreement a step towards restoring the country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. But here arises the main question: can Beirut really force Hezbollah to give up its weapons if the organization has been stronger than many of Lebanon’s state institutions for decades?

What this means for Israel

For Israel, the agreement is beneficial only under one condition: if it becomes a tool of pressure on Hezbollah, not a diplomatic screen for its preservation.

Northern Israel has already paid too high a price for formulas that sounded good in international statements but worked poorly on the ground. Therefore, the current framework will be evaluated not by the ceremony in Washington, but by three things: will the IDF remain free in its actions, will real control by the Lebanese army emerge, and will the actual disarmament of Hezbollah begin.

For now, the answer is cautious: the agreement opens a window but does not close the threat.

Israel received diplomatic confirmation of its key position — without the dismantling of Hezbollah’s military force, there will be no full withdrawal from southern Lebanon. Lebanon received the opportunity to talk about the return of sovereignty. The U.S. received the first visible result after negotiations.

But for the residents of northern Israel, the main test will begin not in Washington, but at the border.

And if Hezbollah remains with weapons, tunnels, drones, and combat groups, the framework agreement will quickly turn into another document that looks good on the diplomatic table but changes little on the ground.