It Could Happen Here Weekly 243

In late 2024, the Lebanese government signed a framework agreement with Israel, mediated by the United States, ostensibly designed to end the de facto state of war between the two countries. But as researcher and writer Ilya Ayyub explains to host Daniel Kird, the agreement’s details have sparked intense controversy, with critics arguing it effectively codifies Israel’s occupation of southern Lebanon rather than ending it.

The Agreement’s Asymmetry

The framework, published on the U.S. government’s website, contains 14 points and roughly 1,300 words. Ayyub points to a critical omission: the terms “withdrawal” and “occupation” are absent. While the text commits the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) to “restore effective sovereign authority over all of Lebanese territory,” this is contingent on “the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups.” The crucial problem, Ayyub argues, is that Israel gets to define when an area is sufficiently disarmed. There is no independent U.N. mechanism; Israel acts as judge, jury, and executioner. The agreement creates two “pilot zones” in occupied territory where the LAF can operate, but the Lebanese army cannot enforce anything—that authority remains with the Israeli military. Ayyub notes that of the 54 towns Israel militarily occupies, at least 46 are partially or entirely demolished, raising the question of what these “security zones” actual