- June 27, 2026
- 2:32 pm
- Middle East
On June 27, 2026, Lebanese media published the full text of the Washington Memorandum between Israel and Lebanon — a framework document signed the day before in Washington with the participation of the United States. According to Reuters, the agreement was signed on June 26 at the US State Department after several days of negotiations; Israel was represented by Ambassador to the US Yehiel Leiter, the US by State Department advisor Daniel Holler, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio called the document the first step on a difficult path.
For Israel, this is not just diplomatic news from Washington. It concerns the security of northern communities, the future of southern Lebanon, and an attempt for the first time in a long time to shift the Lebanese direction from the logic of constant war to the logic of verifiable commitments.
What Israel and Lebanon signed
The Washington Memorandum establishes the common goal of Israel, Lebanon, and the US: to achieve lasting peace, security, and the formal end of the state of war between the two neighboring states.
In the document, Israel and Lebanon affirm each state’s right to exist in peace and declare their intention to resolve disputed issues as sovereign countries — through direct bilateral negotiations with the mediation and support of the US. This is an important formulation because it removes the process from the usual regional scheme, where Lebanon was often effectively spoken for by armed forces linked to Iran.
The main point — disarmament of non-state groups
The key part of the memorandum concerns weapons. The Lebanese state must restore effective sovereign control over the entire territory of the country, and non-state armed groups — primarily Hezbollah — must be disarmed in a verifiable manner.
Only after this should the IDF gradually redeploy from Lebanese territory. The process is described not as a one-time gesture of trust but as a phased scheme with conditions, checks, and a separate security annex. The original text emphasizes that successful implementation of the framework agreement should pave the way for stable and peaceful relations between Israel and Lebanon.
Pilot zones and the role of the Lebanese army
The memorandum mentions pilot zones where the Lebanese army should gradually take full responsibility for security. The first two zones have already been agreed upon between the IDF and the Lebanese army, and future zones should be approved by mutual consent.
The logic of the document is simple: first, the disarmament of armed groups and the dismantling of their infrastructure is confirmed, then the Lebanese army takes control, after which restoration work and the return of civilian residents begin. Reuters also notes that Israel links further steps to how effectively the Lebanese army can dismantle and disarm Hezbollah.
Why this is important for Israel
For the Israeli audience, the main question is not diplomatic but very practical: can the residents of northern Israel live without the threat of rockets, drones, and a new war from southern Lebanon.
In the text of the memorandum, Israel states that its military actions in Lebanon are a consequence of threats and attacks by non-state armed groups, primarily Hezbollah. It also emphasizes: Israel has no territorial claims in Lebanon, and eliminating the threat through the disarmament of such groups should remove the need for an IDF military presence.
This is one of the most sensitive points. Israel receives an internationally formalized framework where its security is linked not to promises but to the verifiable dismantling of Hezbollah’s military infrastructure. Lebanon, in turn, gets a chance to regain state control over territories, but only if its army and government can prove that the monopoly on force truly belongs to the state.
In the middle of this story, it is especially important not to lose the Israeli context: NAnews — Israel News | Nikk.Agency views such a memorandum not as a final peace treaty but as a test of whether official Beirut can act independently of Hezbollah and Iranian influence.
The US takes on the role of guarantor and coordinator
The United States in the document acts not as an observer but as a key mediator. The memorandum provides for the creation of a military coordination group with the support and participation of the US, as well as working groups to prepare a more comprehensive peace and security agreement.
It separately mentions international aid to Lebanon — the restoration of infrastructure, the economy, humanitarian needs, and investment initiatives. But there is a strict condition: funds should not go to structures linked to non-state armed groups. Thus, the future reconstruction of Lebanon is directly separated from Hezbollah and its network of influence.
Why Hezbollah responds with threats
Hezbollah’s reaction was swift and nervous. After reports of the signing of the framework agreement, supporters of the movement held an intimidation action in Beirut: columns of motorcyclists with yellow flags drove from the southern Shiite suburbs, traveled along the route from the international airport to the city center, and demonstratively moved near Lebanese army checkpoints.
According to Lebanese media reports, hundreds of motorcyclists then surrounded the area of the government building and blocked roads leading to it. This was not just a protest against a diplomatic document. It was a signal to the Lebanese state: an attempt to take weapons from Hezbollah may face forceful resistance.
Influential Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah stated that the Lebanese authorities will be able to impose the implementation of the Washington agreement only through civil war with American assistance. Reuters also cites his position: Hezbollah will oppose any measures by the Lebanese authorities and hold on even tighter to its weapons.
Naim Qassem rejects normalization
Hezbollah’s Secretary General Naim Qassem stated that Israel has no choice but to completely and unconditionally withdraw from Lebanese territory. He also rejected the possibility of normalizing relations between Lebanon and Israel.
This is where the main fault line lies. The Washington Memorandum is built around the idea of Lebanese sovereignty: only the state decides issues of war and peace, only the state army controls the territory, only state authorities are responsible for security. Hezbollah, however, effectively defends the right of the armed movement to remain an independent center of power within Lebanon.
This is why the document caused such a sharp reaction. It not only speaks of peace between Israel and Lebanon. It questions the very model by which Iran, through Hezbollah, maintains a military lever within the Lebanese state.
The memorandum is not peace, but a test
It is too early to talk about real peace. The Washington framework is a political map, but its implementation depends on the most difficult part: whether the Lebanese army can actually take control of the territories, not just sign commitments on paper.
For Israel, this is a chance to reduce the threat on the northern border without endless military presence in Lebanon. For Lebanon, it is an opportunity to restore statehood not in declarations but on the ground. For Hezbollah, it is a threat to its main asset: weapons, autonomy, and the role of a ‘state within a state’.
This is why the coming weeks will show whether the first step towards a new regional order has been signed — or a document that Hezbollah will try to disrupt even before its full implementation begins.