Israel–Lebanon Relations

The distinction between arrangements to stop fighting and agreements establishing peace has been central to Israel–Lebanon relations since the General Armistice Agreement of March 23, 1949.[1] That agreement regulated the conduct of the two countries’ armed forces while explicitly preserving their positions on a future peaceful settlement.[1] Subsequent arrangements have addressed Israeli withdrawal, protection of northern Israeli communities, Lebanese sovereignty, deployment of Lebanese government forces, and restrictions on armed groups operating from Lebanon.[4][5]

Relations have involved actors beyond the two governments, including the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Syria, Iran-backed Hezbollah, the United States, and United Nations institutions.[4] Palestinian terrorist operations from Lebanon helped bring about Israeli interventions in 1978 and 1982, while Hezbollah subsequently became the principal armed organization confronting Israel across the Lebanese frontier.[6][7] Agreements have repeatedly linked Israeli withdrawal to measures intended to prevent renewed attacks and strengthen Lebanese state authority in the south.[4][5]

The frontier involves distinct legal and practical questions on land and at sea.[8][9] The Blue Line forms part of the post-2000 withdrawal regime but is distinct from the final land-boundary questions left for negotiation.[4][9] The 2022 maritime agreement resolved the maritime dispute covered by its provisions while expressly leaving the land boundary unaffected.[8] A maritime settlement, a cessation of hostilities, and a comprehensive peace agreement therefore represent different forms of bilateral accommodation.[1][8]

Contacts between Zionist figures and Lebanese Christian leaders preceded Israel’s establishment, during a period when the border was open to visitors.[10] Lebanese President Émile Eddé met Chaim Weizmann in Paris in 1937 to discuss possible ties between the Zionist movement and Lebanon’s Maronite community, and Eddé maintained contacts with Israeli representatives in Paris in 1948.[10]

Lebanon participated in the Arab invasion of Israel in May 1948 during the War of Independence.[6] Israeli forces captured territory west of the Naphtali Mountains, which was returned to Lebanon under the subsequent armistice arrangement.[6] The General Armistice Agreement was signed at Ras En Naqoura on March 23, 1949, following United Nations-led negotiations.[1] Its signatories were Lieutenant Colonel Mordekhai Makleff for Israel and Lieutenant Colonel Tawfiq Salim for Lebanon.[11]

The agreement established an armistice between the parties’ armed forces and prohibited hostile acts, including attacks against civilians in territory controlled by the other party.[1] It declared: “No aggressive action by the armed forces—land, sea, or air—of either Party shall be undertaken, planned, or threatened against the people or the armed forces of the other.”[1] Its provisions were dictated by military considerations and did not prejudice either party’s rights, claims, or positions in a future peaceful settlement of the Palestine question.[1]

The armistice demarcation line followed the existing Lebanon–Palestine international boundary, with its basic military purpose being to mark the limits of movement of the parties’ armed forces.[1] A Mixed Armistice Commission consisted of two representatives appointed by each party and a chair drawn from the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization.[1] It supervised implementation, investigated complaints, and sought equitable, mutually satisfactory settlements.[1]

The early armistice period brought a relatively quiet frontier and greater stability lasting more than twenty years.[11][12] Farmers from the two countries sometimes met amicably, while occasional individual border crossings were resolved through contacts between Israeli and Lebanese officers, mainly through the Mixed Armistice Commission.[12] The two governments later differed over the agreement’s continuing status: after the 1967 war, Lebanon maintained that it remained in force, whereas Israel considered the armistice regime to have collapsed.[12]

The movement of Palestinian armed and terrorist groups from Jordan into Lebanon after 1970 transformed the frontier into a recurring zone of conflict.[13] Palestinian refugees had settled in Lebanon after the War of Independence, and the PLO subsequently gained influence in southern Lebanon as its members arrived from Jordan.[6] Palestinian terrorist activity, Lebanon’s political and sectarian tensions, and repeated Israeli reprisal operations formed the setting for larger Israeli military incursions.[6]

Israel entered southern Lebanon in March 1978 in an operation intended to push back the PLO.[14] Operation Litani temporarily extended Israeli control as far as the Litani River.[14] United Nations Security Council Resolution 425 called for Israel’s withdrawal and established the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon, or UNIFIL, to confirm withdrawal, help restore international peace and security, and assist the Lebanese government in restoring its authority in the area.[13]

UNIFIL initially numbered 4,000 personnel and began arriving in early April 1978.[13] Israel withdrew later that year, while Israeli forces and the South Lebanon Army maintained a buffer zone along the border; Palestinian terrorist groups nevertheless returned and continued attacks.[14] UNIFIL remained in the area through Israel’s withdrawal in 2000 and thereafter deployed along the border.[13]

A ceasefire negotiated by United States envoy Philip Habib took effect on July 24, 1981, but Israel and the PLO understood its scope differently.[15] The PLO maintained that it covered cross-border hostilities, while Israel maintained that it covered PLO attacks wherever they occurred.[15] This disagreement formed part of the immediate diplomatic context preceding the next major war.[15]

On June 6, 1982, Israel launched Operation Peace for Galilee.[15] The Israeli cabinet’s stated objective was to place Galilee communities beyond the range of terrorist groups based in Lebanon, and Prime Minister Menachem Begin described an intended 40-kilometer advance in a message to United States President Ronald Reagan.[15] Begin also stated that Israel did not covet Lebanese territory.[15] The operation expanded beyond the initial security belt, and Israeli forces reached Beirut.[15]

The invasion took place during the Lebanese Civil War and was directed against the PLO’s military and terrorist presence.[14] After a siege and multinational mediation, the PLO began evacuating its forces and leadership from Beirut in August 1982.[14] The intervention also helped create the circumstances in which the emerging Iran-backed organization that became Hezbollah began contesting Israel’s military presence in southern Lebanon.[4]

Israeli planning included an effort to foster a new political order under Christian leadership, with an expectation that a government headed by Bashir Gemayel would sign a peace treaty with Israel.[14] Gemayel was elected president but was assassinated in September 1982.[14] After his assassination, Lebanese Christian militiamen entered the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps and killed Palestinian civilians; an Israeli commission of inquiry subsequently found Ariel Sharon unfit to remain defense minister.[14]

Israel and Lebanon signed an agreement on May 17, 1983, intended to terminate the state of war following the 1982 invasion.[7] United States mediation supported negotiations over an Israeli withdrawal.[14] Syrian troops remained in Lebanon, however, and the Lebanese government lacked the strength to control rival factions.[7] Lebanon abandoned the agreement in March 1984 under Syrian pressure, and it did not establish lasting normalized relations.[7]

In January 1985, Israel decided on a staged withdrawal.[14] Most Israeli troops left Lebanon in June 1985, but a smaller Israeli force and an Israeli-supported Lebanese militia remained in a southern security zone.[7] The zone was approximately nine miles wide and was intended to shield Israeli communities in the Galilee from cross-border attacks.[7] Israeli soldiers continued to be killed there, particularly in attacks by Hezbollah and other terrorist groups supported by Iran and Syria.[7]

Hezbollah became a central armed challenger to the Israeli and South Lebanon Army presence, leaving the security zone both a defensive arrangement and a continuing focus of confrontation.[7][4] Its maintenance did not eliminate rocket fire against northern Israeli communities.[16]

Operation Accountability began on July 25, 1993, and lasted seven days.[16] Israel used air strikes and artillery in an effort to curb Hezbollah rocket attacks, with a stated objective of driving civilians from the area to pressure the Lebanese and Syrian governments to restrain Hezbollah.[16] The campaign damaged civilian infrastructure and displaced tens of thousands of people.[16]

A United States-brokered ceasefire involved Israel, Syria, Lebanon, and Hezbollah.[16] Lebanon and Syria pledged to curb Hezbollah activity, while Israel pledged not to make deep incursions and to allow displaced Lebanese residents to return safely.[16] The understandings permitted Israeli retaliation if Hezbollah resumed firing.[16] These were unwritten understandings; written understandings followed Operation Grapes of Wrath in 1996.[4]

Negotiations over an Israeli withdrawal took place in 1999–2000 but failed to produce a coordinated departure.[4] In March 2000, the Israeli cabinet voted for a complete troop withdrawal by July.[7] After Syrian President Hafez al-Assad declined to continue talks with Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Barak authorized a unilateral withdrawal in May.[7] Israel’s departure ended its security-zone presence and was followed by the dissolution of the South Lebanon Army and a period of tense quiet along the frontier.[6]

The United Nations used the Blue Line to verify Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000, while Lebanon did not participate in the United Nations team’s delineation work.[4] The line was a withdrawal-verification instrument rather than a final agreed international boundary.[9] The United Nations subsequently treated the withdrawal as fulfilling Resolution 425.[17]

Israel retained its presence in the Shebaa Farms/Har Dov area, which the United Nations recognizes as Syrian territory.[7] Hezbollah claimed that the area was Lebanese and used Israel’s continued presence there to justify attacks and the maintenance of an armed organization alongside the Lebanese Armed Forces.[7]

On July 12, 2006, Hezbollah attacked northern Israel, crossed the border, killed Israeli soldiers, and abducted two reservists.[6][5] Israel responded with air strikes and a ground offensive, beginning the Second Lebanon War.[5] Hezbollah fired thousands of rockets into Israel, while Israeli operations caused extensive damage to Lebanese civilian infrastructure and displaced hundreds of thousands of people.[5]

The conflict caused hundreds of deaths on both sides.[5] Israeli government figures recorded more than 4,000 rockets fired at civilian targets, 44 civilian deaths, and 119 Israeli soldiers killed in military operations.[18] Damage in Israel included civilian infrastructure and property, while southern Lebanon experienced extensive destruction and displacement.[18][5]

Security Council Resolution 1701 was adopted on August 11, 2006, and called for a full cessation of hostilities, including an end to Hezbollah attacks and Israeli offensive military operations.[5] Lebanese government forces and UNIFIL were to deploy throughout southern Lebanon as Israeli forces withdrew in parallel.[5]

The resolution called for the area between the Blue Line and the Litani River to be “free of any armed personnel, assets and weapons” other than those of the Lebanese government and UNIFIL.[5] It also called for Lebanese government authority throughout the country and restrictions on unauthorized arms supplies to Lebanon.[5] UNIFIL was authorized to expand to a maximum strength of 15,000 troops.[5]

Hezbollah retained an independent military role in Lebanon after the war despite provisions calling for the disarmament of armed groups.[4][5] In July 2008, United Nations-brokered negotiations secured the return of the abducted soldiers’ bodies to Israel in exchange for five Lebanese prisoners and the bodies of approximately 200 others.[19]

Long-standing disagreement over the maritime boundary slowed exploration of offshore gas fields.[9] In October 2020, a United States-mediated framework provided for talks at Naqoura under the United Nations flag.[9] The Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs estimated the area then at issue at approximately 330 square miles, or 860 square kilometers, claimed by both countries as part of their exclusive economic zones and continental shelves.[9]

Israel and Lebanon announced acceptance of a United States-mediated agreement on October 11, 2022.[3] Lebanon, facing an economic and political crisis, abandoned its demand for Line 29 and advanced a compromise position based on Line 23.[3] Lebanon rejected direct talks, and the agreed clauses and implementation procedure were conveyed through a United States letter.[3] The resulting agreement was between the two governments and did not include Hezbollah as a party.[8]

The agreement defined a maritime boundary by coordinates seaward of its easternmost point and described the maritime dispute as permanently and equitably resolved.[8] Near the coast, it maintained the existing status quo, including the buoy line, pending land-boundary demarcation.[8] The existing buoy line extended approximately five kilometers from shore.[3] The agreement expressly did not prejudice the land boundary and therefore did not settle every territorial question between the countries.[8]

The Karish gas field lay entirely within Israel’s exclusive economic zone, while Lebanon retained full rights to the Qana field.[3] The hydrocarbon provisions addressed a prospect spanning areas identified as Lebanon’s Block 9 and Israel’s Block 72, whose commercial viability was unknown when the arrangement was concluded.[8] A Lebanese Block 9 operator was to explore and exploit the prospect, with Israel and the operator separately agreeing on Israel’s economic rights before a final investment decision.[8] Lebanon was not a party to that separate financial arrangement.[8]

Contemporary reporting estimated Israel’s share of the Qana/Sidon prospect at approximately 17 percent and described Total as the prospective operator.[20] The agreement also envisaged United States assistance in handling future disputes over cross-border natural resources and notification of the agreed maritime boundary to the United Nations.[20] It thus provided a practical mechanism for offshore economic activity without converting the land frontier into an agreed final border.[8][20]

Hezbollah began firing into northern Israel on October 8, 2023, the day after the Hamas-led attack on Israel, and linked its continued attacks to the fighting in Gaza.[10] The confrontation continued for more than a year and escalated sharply in late 2024.[21]

The United States and France announced cessation-of-hostilities commitments accepted by the Israeli and Lebanese governments.[22] The cessation took effect at 4 a.m. on November 27, 2024, and was framed as an effort to implement Resolution 1701.[22] Lebanon committed to preventing Hezbollah and other armed groups from conducting operations against Israel, while Israel committed to refrain from offensive military operations against targets in Lebanon by land, air, or sea.[22]

Both countries retained their inherent right of self-defense consistent with international law.[22] Lebanese official armed and security forces were to be the only armed forces deployed in the southern Litani area.[22] Lebanon’s forces were tasked with monitoring arms entry and production, dismantling unauthorized arms-production facilities and military positions, and confiscating unauthorized weapons.[22]

The arrangement linked a phased Israeli withdrawal to the parallel deployment of the Lebanese army, with a maximum period of 60 days for completion.[22] The United States and France undertook to support the deployment of 10,000 Lebanese soldiers in southern Lebanon.[22] A United States-chaired monitoring mechanism, hosted by UNIFIL and including France, was established to monitor and help enforce the commitments.[22]

The commitments also requested United States facilitation, in partnership with the United Nations, of indirect negotiations over remaining disputed points along the Blue Line.[23] United States President Joe Biden presented the arrangement as designed to provide a permanent cessation of hostilities, while both Biden and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasized Israel’s ability to defend itself against renewed threats.[21]

After the ceasefire, Israel maintained some positions across the Lebanese border and continued air strikes.[24] Hezbollah generally refrained from breaching Israel’s border during this period.[24] The arrangement did not lead directly to a comprehensive peace treaty or the completion of all anticipated withdrawal and security measures.[24]

In March 2026, Hezbollah resumed firing into Israel after United States–Israeli military operations against Iran began.[24] The Lebanese government formally banned Hezbollah’s military activities, although the ban had limited practical effect.[24] Israeli ground operations expanded and a buffer zone was established in southern Lebanon; reported figures for the renewed conflict exceeded one million displaced people in Lebanon and 4,300 deaths.[24]

On April 16, Israel and Lebanon began an initial ten-day cessation of hostilities following United States-brokered direct talks.[25] The pause was intended to enable negotiations toward a permanent security and peace agreement and could be extended by mutual agreement if negotiations progressed and Lebanon demonstrated its ability to assert sovereignty.[25] Israel undertook not to conduct offensive military operations other than necessary self-defense measures against planned, imminent, or ongoing attacks.[25]

Lebanon committed to steps preventing Hezbollah and other non-state armed groups from attacking Israeli targets.[25] The understanding also called for further direct negotiations, including on demarcation of the international land boundary.[25] It did not require the withdrawal of Israeli ground forces during the initial pause.[25]

At a June 2–3 trilateral meeting, Israel and Lebanon agreed to implement a ceasefire contingent on a complete halt to Hezbollah fire and the evacuation of Hezbollah operatives from the South Litani Sector.[26] The parties agreed to advance pilot zones under exclusive Lebanese Armed Forces control and to continue direct negotiations toward a comprehensive agreement.[26] The two governments also declared that they had no hostile intent toward one another.[26]

On June 26, Israel and Lebanon signed a United States-supported trilateral framework after five rounds of direct talks in Washington.[2][27] It set out the ambition of ending the conflict, addressing its underlying causes, formally concluding the state of war, and establishing peaceful neighborly relations.[2] The document provided for direct bilateral negotiations with United States mediation rather than declaring that a comprehensive peace agreement had already been achieved.[2]

The framework established a reciprocal, sequenced process linking Lebanese security responsibility, verified disarmament of non-state armed groups, dismantlement of their infrastructure, and phased Israeli redeployment.[2] Lebanese forces were to assume effective security responsibility in agreed pilot zones following verification of the relevant disarmament measures.[2] Two limited areas in the Nabatieh region were identified for an initial pilot phase, while the military annex was classified.[27]

United States-supported verification and a trilateral military coordination group were included in the framework.[2] Lebanon committed to restoring a state monopoly on the use of force, while Israel stated that it had no territorial ambitions in Lebanon.[2] The process also linked phased redeployment to the safe return of Lebanese civilians and to ending the military or security role of non-state armed groups throughout Lebanon.[2]

Working-level Israeli, Lebanese, and United States representatives met in Tampa on October 20–21 to advance implementation.[28] On October 29, Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said that progress on a ceasefire, Israeli withdrawal, border demarcation, and prisoner releases had yet to materialize.[28] Israel continued to hold a buffer zone and conduct strikes in southern Lebanon, while concern arose over a possible security vacuum ahead of the scheduled expiration of UNIFIL’s mandate at the end of December 2026.[28]

The maritime settlement demonstrated that Israel and Lebanon could reach a detailed economic and boundary arrangement through mediation without first concluding a comprehensive peace treaty.[3][8] Its provisions separated offshore resource development from the unresolved land boundary and created a mechanism for protecting economic rights in a prospect extending across the agreed maritime division.[8]

Security arrangements have repeatedly connected the safety of northern Israeli communities with the ability of Lebanese government forces to exercise authority in southern Lebanon.[4][22] Resolution 1701 and the November 2024 commitments sought to reserve southern security roles to Lebanese state forces and UNIFIL while linking Lebanese deployment to Israeli withdrawal.[5][22] The June 2026 framework extended that model to verified disarmament and phased redeployment.[2]

The June 2026 process marked a move from indirect arrangements toward direct bilateral negotiations under United States mediation.[3][2] Its significance lay in the stated objective of formally ending the state of war and establishing peaceful relations, while its phased security provisions made clear that signing a framework was distinct from completing the measures required for a comprehensive settlement.[2]

Major disputes concern the purposes and conduct of military operations, the status of particular border areas, and responsibility for implementing security commitments.[15][7] Israeli politicians publicly disagreed over whether the 1982 campaign had expanded beyond protecting the Galilee, while competing territorial claims concerning Shebaa Farms continued after the 2000 withdrawal.[15][7] The 2022 maritime agreement also prompted strong praise and criticism in Israel.[29]

The 2026 framework faced Hezbollah’s rejection. Its secretary-general described it as a humiliating surrender to an Israeli-American dictate and pledged continued opposition to its terms.[27] Lebanese officials argued that continuing Israeli strikes hindered Hezbollah’s disarmament, while Israel maintained that its operations targeted armed-group operatives or responded to attacks and that the Lebanese army had not demonstrated the required security capacity.[28] These competing positions concerned compliance and implementation; the framework itself recorded negotiated commitments and objectives, not proof that disarmament, withdrawal, or a final peace had been completed.[2]