Israel-Lebanon: Ceasefire Implementation Agreed in Washington

At the heart of the agreement is the demand for a "complete cessation of Hezbollah's attacks" on Israel. The pro-Iranian militia is also to withdraw from the areas south of the Litani River near the Israeli border. Both sides made it clear that the implementation of the ceasefire is directly linked to this condition. Israel will only abide by the ceasefire if Hezbollah does so as well, it was stated in the talks.

Pilot Zones Under Lebanese Control

A key element of the agreement is the creation of so-called "pilot zones under the exclusive control of the Lebanese army." In these zones, only the regular Lebanese armed forces will exercise control in the future. This addresses the long-standing problem that the Lebanese government itself is not a party to the war but has only limited influence over the Hezbollah militia operating in its country. Details on the practical implementation of these security zones remained open for the time being.

Hezbollah Left Out

The talks in Washington took place without Hezbollah's participation. The Shiite militia, considered the actual party to the conflict with Israel, rejects the ceasefire as well as direct negotiations between Beirut and Jerusalem. Hezbollah is supported by Iran, and its representatives are not at the table, which is likely to make the enforcement of any agreement difficult.

Fragile Ceasefire Since November 2024

The background to the new round of negotiations is the fragility of the ceasefire that has been ongoing for months. A ceasefire between Israel and Hezbollah was already concluded in November 2024, but it proved to be extremely fragile. Israel continued its attacks on Hezbollah targets in Lebanon and accused the militia of rearming in violation of the agreement. The ceasefire, in effect since April 17, 2026, had been extended several times in the following weeks without a lasting cessation of hostilities being achieved.

Despite the formal ceasefire, the Israeli army and Hezbollah continued to attack each other daily. Israel repeatedly carried out airstrikes on targets in Lebanon and sent ground troops across the border. The Lebanese state news agency NNA reported, among other things, at least two drone attacks on vehicles in the south of the country. The Israeli army did not immediately comment on these incidents. Hezbollah, in turn, fired rockets into Israeli territory, including in response to the killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Lebanon was drawn into the war in early March, which Israel and the US had begun against Iran at the end of February. In the course of this Iran war, Hezbollah had again begun firing rockets at Israel, further fueling the escalation. The negotiations in Washington are thus also in the context of ongoing US talks with Tehran on a framework agreement to end the Iran war, in which Tehran is simultaneously demanding an end to the Lebanon conflict.

Iran War as Background

The joint statement formulates the goal of paving the way for further agreements with the agreed-upon steps. "These steps will enable progress towards a comprehensive peace and security agreement," the document states. At the same time, it explicitly rejects any attempt by "state or non-state actors" to "hold Lebanon's future hostage" – a clear jab at Iran.

Both sides emphasized that the future of relations between Israel and Lebanon must be decided by the two governments themselves. The US acted as a mediator, facilitating the negotiations and the formulation of the joint statement. As early as mid-April, the ceasefire had been announced for the first time within the framework of talks between Israel and Lebanon.

Criticism from Israel

The agreement was immediately met with sharp criticism from the Israeli government. Minister of Police Itamar Ben-Gvir described the agreement as a "grave mistake" and spoke on the platform X of "daydreams of advisors who mislead the Prime Minister into wrong decisions." He argued that the Lebanese state was a "partner of Hezbollah" and incapable of displacing the militia, which is hostile to Israel, from the border region.

Ben-Gvir went further: "In fact, the agreement will only make the Hezbollah militia stronger," he wrote on X. Instead of defeating them, Israel is "increasingly coming to terms with their existence." His statement highlights the political tensions within Israel over how to deal with the militia and underscores that the agreement is highly controversial in Israeli domestic politics.

Open Questions and Next Steps

It remained unclear for the time being whether the renewed affirmation of the ceasefire represents a temporary extension or heralds the beginning of a structural implementation phase. The question of how the planned pilot zones are to be concretely established and controlled also remained open. The Lebanese government, which has only limited influence over Hezbollah, would have to enforce the security zones against the militia's resistance – a task that has repeatedly failed in the past due to reality.

The negotiations are to continue later this month. According to sources close to the talks, another meeting is scheduled in just over three weeks, which will focus on the concrete operationalization of the pilot zones and the monitoring of the Hezbollah withdrawal. Until then, the ceasefire, as in the preceding weeks, remains a fragile agreement, the existence of which depends on the willingness of all parties to actually implement the agreed-upon steps.

The agreement is linked to the hope that the conflict, which has been ongoing for months at the edge of a comprehensive regional war, can at least be temporarily contained. At the same time, the history shows that ceasefires have been announced several times without a lasting cessation of hostilities being achieved. The coming weeks will show whether the now-agreed operational implementation of the existing ceasefire makes the crucial difference.