Washington's announcement of the extension of a truce, until now purely nominal, between Israel and Lebanon was subject to one fact: that Hezbollah cease its retaliatory attacks against Israeli troops and completely abandon southern Lebanon. While Israel continues its attacks in that area, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun assured this Thursday, June 4, that the pact could come into force within 24 hours if it is approved by all the "internal" parties of the country. However, Hezbollah rejected an agreement that it called "capitulation."

First modification: 06/04/2026 - 18:35

In the hours following the US announcement of "the implementation of a ceasefire" between Israel and Lebanon, Israeli attacks have not given the Arab country any respite.

This Thursday, June 4, local media reported numerous bombings in several towns in southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley, and the Lebanese National News Agency (NNA) reported five deaths in the city of Sohmor.

Israeli surveillance drones have also not stopped flying at low altitudes in Beirut and its suburbs, an incessant hum that has become part of the environment of the inhabitants of the Lebanese capital.

Likewise, in northern Israel, sirens sounded at different points due to the possible infiltration of a Hezbollah drone or rocket launch.

Meanwhile, the UN peacekeeping mission in Lebanon (UNIFIL) said that a Serbian soldier died as a result of injuries sustained on the night of Wednesday, June 3, by mortar fire that fell on his position near Marjayoun, southern Lebanon.

Two Spanish soldiers were also injured in the attack that occurred in an area marked by heavy clashes between Israeli troops invading southern Lebanon and members of Hezbollah.

These events, recorded in just a few hours, are enough to highlight the difficulties faced in the implementation of another announced ceasefire, especially because the truce declared on April 17 never materialized on the ground.

Israel has continued its bombings and detonations of homes and has expanded its ground invasion of southern Lebanon, while Hezbollah has engaged Israeli troops in hand-to-hand combat, with artillery and explosive drones, launched both in southern Lebanon and towards northern Israel.

Read alsoIsrael and Lebanon agree to a new ceasefire, but conditional on Hezbollah stopping its attacks

First hurdle: a deal involving Hezbollah without Hezbollah on the table

The direct negotiations between Israel and Lebanon, the fourth round of which ended on Wednesday, June 3, with Washington's announcement, have faced a drawback since their conception: they do not include Hezbollah, the Shiite militia party that dragged the Arab country into war by attacking northern Israel in solidarity with Iran in early March, a pretext used by Israel to resume its large-scale offensive in Lebanon.

The decision to exclude Hezbollah is not surprising, considering that both Israel and the United States consider it a terrorist organization, and that any agreement must be negotiated by governments, in this case Lebanon. However, any implementation depends on Hezbollah.

Therefore, as in the negotiations, the agreement presented by the United States on Wednesday suffers from the same thing: it makes the ceasefire subject to Hezbollah, which has rejected the talks, being the first to cease its attacks and withdraw its members from southern Lebanon, without demanding the same from Israeli troops.

That is why the position expressed this Thursday, June 4, by Naim Qassem, secretary general of Hezbollah, was predictable. In a statement, he considered that the pact announced by Washington represents "a capitulation, a defeat and the achievement of the enemy's objectives" and is the "result of these direct, absurd, humiliating and shameful negotiations for Lebanon."

In that sense, Qassem reiterated that the organization demands "a comprehensive ceasefire", which includes southern Lebanon and the "withdrawal" of Israeli troops, and promised that "as long as the aggression persists, we will confront it with all our strength and we will attack wherever we decide and can."

"Making the disarmament of the resistance (Hezbollah) the starting point of any agreement is equivalent to destroying the power of Lebanon and constitutes an existential threat for the people who resist," he stressed.

Despite repudiating Qassem's statements, US sources told the Lebanese network LBCI that Washington will evaluate "actions, not words" and detailed that the pact "begins with a de-escalation that will lead to a permanent and comprehensive ceasefire."

Read alsoDialogues between Israel and Lebanon without Hezbollah amid new bombings

"Last chance": the call of the Lebanese Government

Before Qassem's statement, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun assured in a meeting with journalists at the Presidential Palace that a ceasefire could come into force within 24 hours if it is approved by all the "internal parties involved, especially Hezbollah."

In his message, he warned that the proposal announced by the United States represents a "last opportunity" to reach a solid ceasefire with Israel and, in an apparent message to the Shiite party-militia, he warned that each actor must assume their "responsibilities" if they decide to waste it.

To display this content from X (Twitter), you must allow audience measurement and advertising cookies.

For his part, at the beginning of a meeting with his cabinet, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam also defended negotiations with Israel as "the best option available" and that it is "the fastest and least expensive path for Lebanon and the Lebanese people, as well as for the south and its inhabitants."

"All parties are called to prioritize the interests of Lebanon and its people above any other interest, whether external or partisan, and to assume their responsibilities. Those who refuse or postpone the decision will be solely responsible for the consequences that may arise," he said, in another message addressed to Hezbollah.

And the Lebanese Government has shown itself impotent in the face of the effective control that Hezbollah exercises in southern Lebanon and has seen previous attempts to disarm the group fail, Israel's main requirement for any comprehensive agreement. Doing so by force implies high possibilities of an internal confrontation between the Lebanese Armed Forces and the party-militia fighters.

That is why the text presented by Washington contemplates the implementation of "pilot zones" in southern Lebanon, in which the Lebanese Army would take exclusive control, once Israeli troops withdraw. According to Salam, this "in no way undermines our right to a complete Israeli withdrawal, on the contrary, it brings us closer to it."

Aoun, meanwhile, indicated that Beirut's proposal is that the first areas be created in the southern towns of Zawtar al Sharqiyah, Zawtar al Gharabiya and Yohmor, as well as Beaufort Castle, some of the northernmost points on which the Israeli troops occupying southern Lebanon have advanced.

For Michael Young, senior editor at the Carnegie Middle East Center, "establishing pilot zones is a very useful idea in principle, because if it can lead to Israeli withdrawals in specific areas, and the return of villagers, this will greatly boost the credibility of the state."

Furthermore, on his

"A big question mark remains over Israeli intentions. Israel has systematically torn down all measures in the last year and a half that would have given credibility to the Lebanese state and army, so there are no guarantees that things will change now," he warned.

Read alsoIsrael kills at least 11 people in Lebanon amid new round of talks

Why does Israel continue attacking Lebanon?

The other major obstacle to putting what was agreed upon through diplomatic channels into action is the Israeli insistence on maintaining attacks against Lebanon. In fact, after the recent announcement, the country stressed that it reserves its ability to attack the neighboring country.

But even the ceasefire announcement published by Washington does not specify immediate demands on Israel, which has continued its attacks on all fronts on which it has recently signed truce agreements.

Lebanon is no exception and the Minister of Defense, Israel Katz, assured that the text contemplates the permanence "for the moment" of Israeli troops in southern Lebanon, "and without the return of the population." The Israeli offensive, let us remember, has forced the displacement of 1.2 million Lebanese and has caused the deliberate destruction of homes and infrastructure in communities in southern Lebanon.

Also, according to Katz, the initial pact allows for continuity of "actions" against Hezbollah, as well as "freedom of action, with the backing of the United States, to attack in Beirut in response to attacks against Israeli communities and territory."

For the Israeli Defense Minister, the understanding is, then, an "achievement on the ground and at the political level" as a result of "the reality that we have created so far in Lebanon", which, he maintained, "can lead to a peace agreement with the Lebanese State."

However, a withdrawal of Israeli troops from Lebanon is assumed to be gradual and it is to be expected that Benjamin Netanyahu's Government will try to postpone it as long as possible.

And the Israeli prime minister faces multiple pressures. From the United States, which wants to end the regional conflict that it started together with Israel with its attacks in Iran and seeks calm in Lebanon to contribute to it. From its most radical allies in the Government, who demand to maintain the occupation of southern Lebanon and the "destruction" of Hezbollah. From his opponents, who seek to show him as a "weak" ruler in the midst of the general election campaign, possibly to be held in September or October. And of the inhabitants of northern Israel – an electoral stronghold of Netanyahu – who consider any agreement insufficient that does not guarantee, according to them, the security of their communities.

Another actor that is not part of the negotiations, but that also influences what is happening in Lebanon, and that may be an obstacle to the agreement presented by Washington, is Iran.

Within the framework of ongoing talks with the United States for a ceasefire and the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, Tehran has included among its conditions a comprehensive ceasefire in Lebanon, in an attempt to safeguard its ally Hezbollah.

For this reason, upon learning of the outlines of the understanding announced by the Trump Administration, the commander of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Esmail Qaani, reiterated that "the minimum demand of the resistance is the withdrawal of the occupying regime (in reference to Israel) to the positions it occupied before the start of the 40-day war."

That is, Iran demands that Israeli troops withdraw, at least, to the only five positions they maintained inside Lebanon before the conflict that began with the attacks by the United States and Israel against Iran on February 28.

According to statements collected by the semi-official Iranian agency Tasnim, Qaani also promised that "the Lebanese mujahideen will soon see the results of their brave resistance."

For Michael Young, it will be "interesting to watch the interplay between US negotiations with Iran and developments in Lebanon."

"Iran is trying hard to link the two, positioning itself as Lebanon's savior, and now the Americans have returned to propose a plan that seeks to strengthen the Lebanese state as the main negotiator for a ceasefire, not Iran," said the Carnegie Middle East Center expert.

"This will not please Tehran, but if the plan can quickly return southern Lebanese to certain villages, it will be difficult for the Iranians to resist," he concluded.

Read alsoLebanon accuses Israel of applying a "scorched earth policy" with the expansion of its offensive

With Reuters, EFE and local media

Related keywords

The content you requested does not exist or is no longer available.