Lebanon’s Mitri says divisive Israel framework still lacks government approval
Submitted by
Daniel Hilton
on
Wed, 07/15/2026 - 12:35
Deputy Prime Minister Tarek Mitri tells MEE any deal with Israel to stop its war with Hezbollah must honour his country's demands and not deepen Lebanese divisions
Deputy Premier Tarek Mitri arrives at the first meeting of Lebanon's new government at the presidential palace in Baabda, east of Beirut, on 11 February 2025 (AFP)
Off
The Israel-Lebanon framework is not workable in its current form and cannot become a binding agreement without approval from the Lebanese government, Deputy Prime Minister Tarek Mitri has told Middle East Eye.
Mitri drew the distinction between the president's constitutional role in negotiating on behalf of Lebanon and the Council of Ministers' role in approving any final agreement, describing the framework as the beginning of a process.
Under Lebanon's constitution, he said, the president has the right to negotiate, but any proposed agreement must be brought before the cabinet. That, he said, had not happened yet, meaning the framework was not a legally binding document approved by the government.
"The word agreement is nowhere to be seen in this text," he said, speaking to MEE in an interview in his office in Beirut.
The US-brokered framework, which seeks to lay out a path towards ending hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah, was signed by Lebanon and Israel in Washington on 26 June. It has since triggered widespread opposition in Lebanon, raising questions over sovereignty, accountability and provisions that place Lebanese obligations ahead of Israeli commitments.
Hezbollah has denounced the framework as failing to guarantee Israel’s full withdrawal from Lebanese territory, where it continues to occupy about six percent, and the return of hundreds of thousands of displaced residents to the south.
Mitri acknowledged that the proposal falls short of Lebanon's demands but described it as an opening rather than a final settlement.
"This is not the last word... It doesn't meet all the desires and aspirations of the Lebanese. But this is a beginning," he said, adding that the framework was "not a solid, well-structured, final binding agreement".
He also conceded that "there are many who are divided on this", suggesting there’s more political work to be done before any final deal could win broad backing inside Lebanon.
"You need to make sure that at the domestic level, although there might be disagreement, but [a deal] should not exacerbate divisions and should not deepen already existing divisions."
Mitri also pointed to Israeli statements made shortly after the framework was made public as evidence of its shortcomings and an indication that Israel does not consider itself bound by it.
"Twenty-four hours after the trilateral framework was made public... Netanyahu, the foreign minister, the defence minister said, 'We're staying in southern Lebanon. We're not withdrawing,'" he said.
Israel's refusal to commit publicly to pulling out from the south, he added, remained at odds with Lebanon's fundamental demands of a full Israeli withdrawal, the return of displaced residents and the release of prisoners.
‘A war on Lebanon’
Mitri described the conflict as "a war that Lebanon did not want, did not seek", arguing that it had become a war on Lebanon rather than only involving Hezbollah.
Hezbollah fired rockets on Israel on 2 March, after the US-Israeli killing of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.
He said many Lebanese believe Hezbollah's actions gave Israel a pretext to launch its military campaign. The group maintains it acted in the defence of Lebanon, preempting an inevitable Israeli attack.
Those conflicting narratives, Mitri said, would have to be resolved through dialogue within Lebanon's state institutions after a ceasefire is consolidated.
Israel's strikes and ground invasion have killed more than 4,300 people since the war started on 2 March, according to Lebanese authorities. The United Nations Development Program reported that more than 11,000 buildings in southern Lebanon have been completely destroyed by Israel, with over 2,200 buildings partially damaged.
"When the war started in Lebanon, it looked like a battleground between Israel and Hezbollah. But Israel has made a war on Lebanon," Mitri said.
"And there are many parts of Lebanon where Hezbollah had no military activity that were severely affected."
This picture taken from the Upper Galilee in northern Israel, near the border, shows Israeli Merkava tanks driving along a road past destroyed buildings in southern Lebanon on 17 June 2026 (AFP)
The deputy prime minister also rejected widespread criticism that Article 13 of the framework would prevent Lebanon from documenting Israeli war crimes or pursuing future legal action.
The provision, suspending legal and political action between the two sides during negotiations, has raised alarm among Lebanese human rights and legal experts, who fear it could shield Israel from accountability.
Mitri, who chairs Lebanon's National Commission on International Humanitarian Law, said the state's work documenting war crimes has continued and "cannot be stopped" by Article 13.
He added that Lebanon had never begun proceedings against Israel before an international court "for various reasons", pointing out that neither country is a party to the Rome Statute.
However, he said the commission's documentation could still be used by Lebanese citizens seeking to bring cases against Israel before courts exercising universal jurisdiction abroad.
Mitri also said the government had been assured that Article 13 did not permanently end legal action against Israel.
"We were told that although the word 'cessation' is used... it only means suspension," he said, adding that pausing legal proceedings during negotiations was a common practice in other peace processes, including those in South Africa and Algeria.
Disarmament: A political matter
The Lebanese state’s efforts to assert state control over weapons and the question of how to disarm Hezbollah have become one of the most sensitive central issues facing the government.
Shortly after Hezbollah first opened fire on Israel in March, the government banned the group from pursuing any military activities.
Last year, the Lebanese government instructed the army to prepare plans to disarm the group, raising fears of civil war even as officials, including the president and the prime minister, have said they are not seeking a military confrontation with Hezbollah.
In early March, MEE reported tensions between Prime Minister Nawaf Salam and his army chief, Rodolphe Haykal, over disagreements on how to deal with Hezbollah and implement the ban.
Sources said that Nawaf was considering sacking Haykal for refusing to confront the group in the midst of the war.
Mitri insisted that Hezbollah's disarmament is a political question, rejecting the idea that the Lebanese army should or needed to confront the group by force to establish its authority across Lebanon.
"Disarming Hezbollah is not a technical question," he said. "It's not about the military balance of power between the army and Hezbollah's military structure - it's first and foremost political."
Mitri said there has been little discussion on the issue over the past few months, adding that "in times of war, dialogue becomes difficult". He said, however, that talks were inevitable, describing it "a Lebanese affair".
Asked whether Israel was seeking to provoke a confrontation between the Lebanese army and Hezbollah, Mitri said: "Possibly the Israelis would be happy if that happens. But I think neither the army nor Hezbollah are willing to fall into the trap of fighting each other."
He added that the pilot zones agreed in the framework could become a "litmus test" of the army's ability to expand state authority, while allowing Hezbollah to step back "without provoking a military confrontation with the army".
‘The only party that can mediate’
The current conflict is the third major confrontation between Israel and Hezbollah since the 33-day war in 2006, which ended with a UN-brokered ceasefire that largely kept the border calm for nearly two decades.
Comparing the current negotiations with those that ended the 2006 war, Mitri said Lebanon was operating in a vastly different diplomatic landscape, with the UN Security Council and multilateral diplomacy "sidelined".
Ceasefires and construction: Satellite images reveal how Israel is cementing its presence in Lebanon and Syria
»
"The only party that can mediate, or at least allow for mediation under its auspices, is the United States of America."
Mitri said that reality had left Beirut with little choice but to engage Washington despite long-standing distrust.
Lebanon had always been "a footnote" in US regional policy, he said, but officials believed there was now "a window of attention" that they wanted to take advantage of.
He added that some viewed recent comments by US Vice President JD Vance suggesting that Washington’s support for Israel should not be taken for granted as a sign of a potential shift toward a less unconditional US-Israel relationship.
"The main reason why the Lebanese look towards the United States is… that the US is the only country that has leverage over Israel and can help in resolving the present difficult issues we face," he said.
Mitri also argued that Israel's objectives have become much "more ambitious" since the 2006 war, pointing to repeated statements by Israeli leaders about a new military doctrine and "reclaiming deterrence" through the creation of security buffer zones in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria.
"Now we are in a totally different, more difficult situation," he said. "We're left with very few options."
Intertwined futures
Looking beyond the conflict, Mitri said there was regional interest in developing an architecture of coordination and "strategic alignment" among countries including Syria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey, extending further than security arrangements.
He said Ankara also viewed regional security as interconnected, pointing to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan's view that Turkey's security was tied to Syria's, and Syria's to Lebanon's.
Mitri stressed that Syria was more than just a neighbour and ally, but that Lebanon and Syria's futures were "inextricably intertwined".
Regarding reports that US President Donald Trump had asked the Syrian president to intervene militarily against Hezbollah, Mitri said Syria's new leadership had shown no interest in reviving decades of Damascus interference under the Assad regime.
President Ahmed al-Sharaa has denied that his country sought to take action against the group.
"We know that with the present Syrian government, there is no hegemonic design over Lebanon," Mitri said, adding that Damascus is willing to support the country through other means.
He also denied there were any reservations on the part of President Joseph Aoun toward Syria’s new leadership despite the fact that neither president has yet visited the other’s capital.
"I have not sensed any major reason why the visits... did not take place," Mitri said, adding that trust was still being rebuilt after decades of mutual suspicion and Syrian dominance over Lebanon.
"This is all changing and it takes time for the population of both countries to realise that we're in a totally different dispensation."
Risks to unity
Despite years of economic collapse, political turmoil and successive wars, Mitri said he did not believe Lebanon's unity and sovereignty were under an imminent existential threat.
He acknowledged, however, that sectarian loyalties and communal tensions remained present, creating a sense of estrangement.
While warning that the country's future depended on resolving the current crisis, he stopped short of ruling out the risks altogether.
"Lebanon's unity is always in the making," he said, adding that he did not see fragmentation taking place "unless we were unable to manage the present crisis and dissipate the present fears".
Israel's war on Lebanon
Adam Chamseddine
Beirut
News
Post Date Override
0
Update Date
Mon, 05/04/2020 - 21:19
Update Date Override
0
.jpeg&w=3840&q=75)
