TPC Staff
The Palestine Chronicle / June 28, 2026
A Haaretz analysis argues the new US-backed Lebanon framework risks turning southern Lebanon into a prolonged military zone like Gaza.
Key takeaways: Haaretz argues the US-backed framework agreement could leave Israeli forces in southern Lebanon indefinitely; the analysis says the deal contradicts earlier US-Iran understandings reached in Switzerland and reflects competing policies within the Trump administration; according to the article, the agreement risks transforming southern Lebanon into a ‘Gaza Strip 2’, with continued Israeli military operations and no realistic path to Hezbollah’s disarmament.
‘Gaza Strip 2’
A new Haaretz analysis argued that the framework agreement signed Friday in Washington between Israel and Lebanon could pave the way for turning southern Lebanon into ‘Gaza Strip 2’, while exposing what it describes as conflicting approaches within the Trump administration toward the region.
The article contended that the US-backed agreement, sponsored by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, directly contradicts understandings reached only days earlier in Switzerland between Vice President J.D. Vance and Iranian officials, revealing that Washington is pursuing “two conflicting tracks.”
According to the analysis, while the Swiss understandings envisioned dialogue involving Iran, Hezbollah, Lebanon and Israel, the Washington framework deliberately excludes Tehran and Hezbollah from the negotiating process.
Article Seven of the agreement states that “no third party” may act on behalf of any of the signatories, effectively denying Iran any formal role in Lebanon’s future.
A deal unlikely to be implemented
Despite the apparent contradiction between the Swiss understandings and the Washington framework, the analysis argued that both initiatives share one defining characteristic.
“What unites both the Swiss understandings and the Washington agreement—despite contradicting one another—is the low probability that either will actually be implemented,” the analysis read.
The article noted that previous agreements—including the 1989 Taif Agreement, UN Security Council Resolution 1701 and the November 2024 Israel-Lebanon ceasefire—all required the Lebanese state to exercise exclusive military authority and envisioned Hezbollah’s disarmament.
According to the author, none of those commitments has ever been implemented.
The reason, the analysis argued, is that neither the Lebanese government nor the Lebanese Army is willing or able to forcibly disarm Hezbollah at the risk of triggering another civil war.
Meanwhile, Hezbollah continues to retain substantial support among Lebanon’s Shiite population.
A Lebanese political figure quoted by Haaretz summarized what the newspaper describes as the central dilemma.
“If Israel withdraws from Lebanon, Hezbollah will claim victory and argue that it still needs weapons to defend the country.”
“If Israel continues occupying parts of Lebanon, Hezbollah will argue that it must continue fighting Israel in order to liberate Lebanese territory,” the source added.
According to the article, the new framework agreement does nothing to resolve this strategic deadlock.
‘Gaza Strip 2’
The article’s most striking argument is that the agreement could effectively institutionalize a permanent Israeli military presence in southern Lebanon.
“The wording of the agreement… lays the groundwork for turning southern Lebanon into a kind of ‘Gaza Strip 2’,” it read.
According to Haaretz, Israel’s withdrawal is conditioned upon two requirements: the Lebanese Army establishing effective control over southern Lebanon and Hezbollah surrendering its weapons.
The analysis argued that both conditions are highly unlikely to be fulfilled.
As a result, Israel could maintain its military presence indefinitely: “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s promise to maintain the security zone ‘for the foreseeable future’ is therefore likely to become reality.”
The newspaper further argued that, just as Israeli-controlled areas in Gaza continue expanding while military operations persist, southern Lebanon could witness a similar pattern.
“And just as Israel’s continued military presence in Gaza—where the controlled territory continues to expand—is accompanied by ongoing military strikes, similar operations are expected to continue in Lebanon.”
Unlike Gaza, however, the article noted that Israeli occupation forces stationed inside Lebanon would remain under constant threat from armed groups.
Conflicting messages from Washington
Beyond Lebanon, Haaretz argued that the framework agreement reflects broader inconsistencies within the Trump administration’s regional policy.
While the Switzerland understandings focused primarily on ending the conflict with Iran, Rubio’s subsequent Gulf tour produced a joint declaration reviving demands related to Iran’s ballistic missile program and its regional allies.
According to the newspaper, these issues had been largely absent from the earlier memorandum of understanding.
Iran responded by reaffirming that its ballistic missile and drone capabilities constitute non-negotiable red lines.
The article, therefore, concluded that Washington is simultaneously advancing competing diplomatic initiatives rather than a single coherent strategy.
Netanyahu’s limited gains
The analysis also portrayed the agreement as evidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has fallen short of his broader objectives.
Rather than achieving his stated goal of bringing about regime change in Tehran, the article argues, Netanyahu is now focused on preserving Israel’s military freedom of action in Lebanon.
“From his perspective, yesterday’s framework agreement amounts to little more than a consolation prize in a campaign that, for the time being, has ended in defeat,” it said.
