The proposed trilateral peace framework involving Israel, Lebanon and the United States includes a 14-point memorandum aimed at ending hostilities in southern Lebanon.
While most of the provisions focus on resolving the conflict, here are some of the most important points of the proposed peace framework.
Establishment of peace
Both parties to the conflict — Israel and Lebanon — with the US assistance, have agreed to work towards lasting peace and security, an important clause on which the framework begins.
Moving forward, the two neighbouring countries declare their intent to conclusively end the conflict, address its underlying causes and formally bring an end to the state of war between them.
Disarmament issue
Both sides are expected to hold direct discussions on the disarmament of armed groups as part of efforts to achieve lasting peace through dialogue, with mediation by the United States.
The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF), which remains significantly less equipped than the Israeli military, would gradually assume responsibility for security across Lebanese territory after the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups and the dismantling of their military infrastructure.
Withdrawal of Israeli forces
The withdrawal of Israeli Defence Forces from Lebanese is one of the key points of the peace framework. It outlines a phased process along with verification mechanisms to monitor implementation.
Creation of de-confliction zones
The framework proposes "de-confliction zones" where neither the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) nor the non-state armed group Hezbollah would maintain a military presence. The Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) would assume full operational control of these pilot zones.
While two pilot zones have been proposed initially, additional zones in future would be established through mutual agreement between the two sides.
Upon confirmed disarmament of non-state armed groups, particularly the Iran-backed Hezbollah, the LAF would assume full security responsibility in these zones. The Lebanese government is also expected to re-establish full control across its territory in coming days.
The framework further aims to restore the state's monopoly over the use of force through the complete and verified disarmament of non-state armed groups, including Hezbollah.
The framework also calls for Israel and Lebanon to establish working groups to draft a comprehensive peace and security agreement. It further says the two sides will immediately begin complementary tracks of direct engagement, facilitated by the United States.
Respect for territorial sovereignty
Israel has maintained that its military operations in Lebanon were aimed at countering security threats posed by non-state groups like Hezbollah. Israel has consistently sought stronger security arrangements and the disarmament of Hezbollah.
One of the most significant and complex points in the framework states that Israel has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon. However, critics argue that this assurance appears inconsistent with statements made by some Israeli political leaders advocating for a stronger military presence in southern Lebanon.
The proposed framework is expected to test the commitments of Israel, Hezbollah and the Lebanese government. Only time will tell whether this initiative evolves into a comprehensive peace deal or turns out to be little more than a smokescreen.
A vague and one-sided framework?
What the region has witnessed over the past two and a half years suggests that Israel has continued its military operations and expanded its presence in Syria, Palestine and Lebanon. At the same time, Iran-backed groups, including the PMF in Iraq, which also have a presence in Syria, and Hezbollah are unlikely to agree to disarm in the near future, given the current state of the entire region.
So the framework is more likely to result in a long pause in hostilities than a full-fledged peace agreement, as many of its clauses in the agreement appear to place greater responsibility on Beirut than on Israel.
Critics say that even a drone attack or a small projectile fired from southern Lebanon could trigger renewed Israeli military action, raising concerns that the ceasefire could quickly unravel.
As a result, some observers believe the agreement may amount to a prolonged pause in hostilities rather than a comprehensive and lasting peace settlement.
Whether the framework succeeds will ultimately depend on its implementation, the willingness of all parties to honour their commitments and developments on the ground.
By Waseem Ahmad Ganie
Also read: Iran-US peace talks enter second day in Geneva amid tensions
Follow us
