Representations of the Israeli and Lebanese flags on a memorial in the border town of Metula, in northern Israel, on June 27, 2026. (Credit: Amir Cohen/Reuters)
The framework agreement concluded Friday between Lebanon and Israel at the end of the fifth round of negotiations in Washington has sparked strong reactions across the political spectrum, including categorical and particularly virulent rejection from the duo and other political camps.
At the forefront of this opposition is the president of Parliament and leader of the Amal movement, Nabih Berri, who had only these two terse sentences as his response. "O my people in Lebanon, throughout Lebanon, it's discord! In discord, be like the calf: neither a back to mount, nor an udder to be milked."
"I examined the contents of the framework agreement, I read it and I saw discord in it," he later commented to the Saudi media outlet el-Charq el-Awsat.
‘This agreement will not be implemented’
The secretary general of Hezbollah, Naim Qassem, for his part, published a statement in which he described the agreement as "humiliating," "shameful," and "an abandonment of sovereignty" in favor of Israel. He also considered the condition for any Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, namely, the complete disarmament of Hezbollah throughout Lebanese territory, to be "extremely dangerous."
This demand "crosses all red lines and turns Lebanon into a plaything in the hands of the Israeli enemy," he said. "This agreement is null and void, and it is the provisions of the Iranian-American protocol agreement that should be applied," added the leader of the Shiite formation, referring to the June 17 text signed by Washington and Tehran to end the war in the Middle East, including in Lebanon.
For his part, the deputy from the party, Hussein Hajj Hassan, stated that his group does "not recognize" this agreement and that it "will not be implemented" as long as "resistance and weapons remain." "This is not an agreement, but a capitulation and a total surrender of Lebanese authority before the United States and the Zionist enemy. ... The conditions in the agreement bind Lebanon, while no commitment is provided for the Israeli side," he declared in an interview with Sputnik radio. "By signing, the authority [the government] affirms it will appeal to foreign parties; it has delivered land and resources to the enemy, which is extremely serious," he added.
Hussein Hajj Hassan also asserted that "the defeatist method and approach ... based on submission" adopted by the government has made it "devoid of legitimacy and representation." "As for our next steps, they will depend on the deliberations and consultations we conduct within the party and with our allies," he concluded, as protests were already organized by supporters of the Amal-Hezbollah duo in front of the Grand Serail in Beirut Friday night.
The vice president of the Supreme Islamic Shiite Council, Sheikh Ali Khatib, also described the agreement as a "new submission to American pressures and dictates," considering that the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon mentioned in the text "is conditioned on Israeli requirements that are impossible to meet."
"It seems that Lebanese officials have not learned any lessons from past experiences, which led to the failure of all agreements that did not have Lebanese consensus," he said, drawing a parallel with the stillborn May 17, 1983 agreement signed between the Lebanese and Israeli governments at the time, during the civil war and Israeli invasion of Lebanon. "One of the most harmful effects of this agreement will be to accentuate the fractures and internal divisions in Lebanon, both politically and among the people," added Ali Khatib.
A small group allied with Hezbollah, the People's Movement, went so far as to call on people to "mobilize consciously and courageously to thwart this agreement and overthrow the puppet power that signed it."
Lebanon ‘emerges victorious’ from the agreement
In a statement, Kataeb leader Samy Gemayel considered that Lebanon "emerges victorious" from this agreement, as it enshrines, in his view, "the end of the war, the complete Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory, the official recognition by Israel of the absence of any claims or ambitions toward Lebanon, the restoration of sovereignty, the extension of state authority and the exclusivity of arms as well as decisions of war and peace remaining solely with legitimate institutions."
"The Lebanese state has shown that when it negotiates on behalf of Lebanon and from its own legitimacy, it is capable of defending the interests of the Lebanese," stressed the Metn deputy, who nevertheless believes that the major challenge to come will be its "implementation." "What is required today is strong political will, commitment to the state, and a refusal to yield to any intimidation, blackmail, or attempt to obstruct this process," he said.
The head of the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), Gebran Bassil, for his part, raised some reservations about this agreement, while calling not to "reject it categorically" as Hezbollah does. He considered that "the framework agreement, despite its shortcomings, must be approached with responsibility. It is beneficial if we recover all our rights, and dangerous if it constitutes a source of discord. Everyone must be careful not to fall into this trap and not to categorically reject any path that might free territory, strengthen the state, and establish peace."
Bassil, Batroun MP, also insisted on his rejection of the formula of "redeployment" of Israeli troops occupying southern Lebanon as defined by the agreement, which speaks of a "progressive redeployment outside Lebanese territory," and said he was in favor of "guarantees for withdrawal and non-aggression."
"Where are the refugees and resources?" he concluded, referring to the issue of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and the water and gas resources long disputed between the two countries, such as the waters of the Wazzani River or the gas fields off the coast.
‘A grave and dangerous error’
For his part, Druze leader and former head of the Progressive Socialist Party (PSP), Walid Jumblatt, limited himself to one sentence posted on his X account: "What is striking in this agreement, tripartite in its form but unilateral in its content, is the total sidelining of the Armistice Agreement," of 1949, signed at the time between Lebanon and Israel.
"It is a grave and dangerous error," also reacted MP Halime Kaakour, who pointed to a clause in the agreement listed as the 13th of the 14 points of the text. "How can you accept this clause which stipulates to 'refrain from any hostile or antagonistic action in international political or legal forums'," the Sunni MP from Iqlim el-Kharroub demanded of President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam.
"Does this mean giving up pursuing the enemy for war crimes and crimes against humanity? In other words, you are enshrining impunity, undermining justice owed to the thousands of victims of war crimes and violations of international humanitarian law, and depriving Lebanon of an important dossier for financial reparations that could result from these crimes," she exclaimed. And to conclude: "You speak of 'peace'! Don't you realize there can be no peace without justice, and that peace imposed by force and submission will not protect us from recurring conflicts?"
