ByHERB KEINON

JULY 24, 2026 14:18

Lebanon has long been the place where carefully crafted strategies meet their end.

Israel has often persuaded itself that it discovered the key to northern stability. Early on, many thought Lebanon, seen as the progressive Switzerland of the Middle East, would become the first Arab nation to reach peace with Israel. In the 1980s, Prime Minister Menachem Begin thought President Bashir Gemayel could achieve that accord. Israel later decided a security zone in southern Lebanon would bring enduring calm.

Those ideas never held up against Lebanon's actual conditions. Time after time, the country has disproved those who believed they had the answer to lasting stability.

Israelis thus have solid grounds to view with doubt the start this week of a trial program where the IDF pulls back from villages in southern Lebanon, the Lebanese Armed Forces move forward, remove Hezbollah elements, and slowly restore Beirut's authority.

History is not the sole cause for care. This is the Middle East, after all, where strong regional and external powers with opposing goals seem to wait at every turn, ready to derail any advance.

Land for arms

Still, events this week marked a small yet possibly meaningful move ahead.

On Tuesday, Lebanese army units entered the town of Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh in the Nabatieh area once the IDF left the zone. This was the first of several trial areas Israel plans to vacate under a framework deal reached with Lebanon through American mediation in late June.

What sets this deal apart as potentially historic is its reach beyond a short-term truce. Born from five rounds of the first direct political talks between Israel and Lebanon in over four decades, it creates a lasting security structure by directly tying Israeli pullback to Hezbollah disarmament.

Label it land for arms.

This connection sets the effort apart from almost all earlier tries to stabilize southern Lebanon.

Past attempts centered mostly on adjusting Israel's conduct, urging it to withdraw, depending on global peacekeepers, or hoping time alone would ease tensions along the border.

The current plan instead works to shift Lebanon's conduct by conditioning Israeli withdrawal on Hezbollah's exit. Success is uncertain, yet it marks a core shift in approach.

Under the terms, Israel will exit areas it took for a buffer zone only after Hezbollah is confirmed gone from those spots. By accepting this, the Lebanese government has for the first time recognized that Hezbollah arms form the main barrier to full Israeli withdrawal.

Trump labels deal strong accord

The pledge gained public weight on Tuesday when Lebanese President Joseph Aoun met US President Donald Trump at the White House. Trump called the plan a strong accord and noted Israel was already moving its troops.

Aoun's comments added weight. When asked about criticism from Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, who called the deal divisive, Aoun rejected the need for parliamentary approval, stating it fell under presidential powers and affirming, We are committed to it.

A further change is that the United States, not the often ineffective UNIFIL, now oversees execution and checks.

The deal also matters because it moved the Israeli-Lebanese issue from the border into a question of control over the Lebanese state.

Will Lebanon become a standard, sovereign, Western-supported state with sole control over armed force? Or will it stay under Hezbollah influence, whose separate weapons and Iranian ties have long overshadowed state power?

The deal effectively requires Lebanon to choose its future path. Several positive signs have appeared that Israel should support.

Hezbollah diminished

Unlike earlier diplomatic efforts, this one follows major military, political, and financial losses for Hezbollah. The group has not vanished, but it can no longer set Lebanon's national direction as before.

This reduced strength, along with Iran's own setbacks, helped create conditions for a president and prime minister who seem sincere about restoring state sovereignty at Hezbollah's cost.

Willingness is one matter. Capacity is another.

The key issue now is not whether Beirut seeks to disarm Hezbollah. It is whether Beirut has the resolve, the means, or both to act.

Israel's doubt that Aoun can turn intent into action explains Jerusalem's measured steps.

Aoun himself noted the scale of the task during his White House talk with Trump. He asked the American president for just two items: ongoing political support and aid for the Lebanese Armed Forces, which he called the core of security and stability.

Without a capable Lebanese army, he cautioned, all efforts would fail, noting that when the army broke apart in 1975, militias took over and southern Lebanon turned into a base for attacks on Israel.

Trump gave a clear public show of support. I fully trust the LAF. I fully trust the leadership of the LAF, he said. He also praised the deal with Israel as a strong step ahead.

This public backing counts. Unlike past Lebanon efforts, Washington has put real political weight behind the current process and building the LAF as the sole legitimate armed force, replacing Hezbollah instead of sharing space with it.

Yet a gap remains between Washington's trust and ground realities. The LAF may be Lebanon's most respected national body, as Aoun said with Trump, but it lacks the gear and funds for a long fight against a group as rooted and armed as Hezbollah.

LAF Commander Gen. Rodolphe Haykal has noted the army lacks means for such a task, while years of economic decline have left troops underpaid and the force reliant on outside aid. He warned that trying to break up Hezbollah, a Shi'a terror group, could strain the army, made up of Sunni, Christian, and Shi'a troops, and risk reviving Lebanon's sectarian divides.

Deal puts US in charge of checks

For Jerusalem, the value of this framework rests not only in its words but in its setup. Unlike earlier diplomatic tries that failed under weak global groups unwilling to face Hezbollah, this deal places the US, not France or UN peacekeepers, in charge of verification.

Israel has long distrusted Paris on Lebanon matters, viewing French policy as too lenient toward Hezbollah's political side. This adds to concerns over what Jerusalem sees as France's unbalanced stance on Palestinian issues.

By contrast, this setup centers on Washington and will use US Central Command to confirm Hezbollah removal from an area before Israel withdraws. In Israel's view, American oversight ensures that any LAF failure to clear weapons will bring real diplomatic and financial results, rather than ending in a standard UNIFIL report.

Even strong American checks cannot fix a Lebanese army short on resources for the job. This is where the plan faces limits.

While some hoped Saudi Arabia would fund the effort and support the LAF, Riyadh's role has stayed at low-cost diplomatic moves. A decade after halting a major $3 billion defense grant to Lebanon over Hezbollah influence, the Saudis now offer more diplomatic backing than actual funds.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman gave some economic relief on June 11 by ending a five-year trade ban and called Aoun before the White House visit to back the plan. But none of this replaces direct funding, and the Saudis have not offered cash for LAF salaries or new equipment.

This keeps Israeli doubt alive. The issue is not whether Aoun wants to build state strength. It is whether the army, the state's main power tool, has enough strength and money to finish the work.

Thus, many reasons exist for doubt. Yet a few grounds for careful hope remain: a much weaker Hezbollah and Iran, Lebanese leaders openly stating that Hezbollah arms are the core problem, an American administration heavily committed to the deal's success, and an Israeli withdrawal directly tied to Hezbollah's exit.

Whether these new factors will finally beat Lebanon's record of blocking even strong plans is unclear. But by leaving Zawtar al-Gharbiyeh on Tuesday, Israel showed that despite all doubts, it sees this framework as worth testing.