Why Washington agreement is considered a potential trigger for new internal strife in Lebanon

Pars Today – Nabih Berri, the Speaker of Lebanon's Parliament, has warned of a new sedition following the Washington agreement between the Lebanese government and the Israeli regime. Addressing the Lebanese people, he said: "People of Lebanon, this is a sedition."

According to Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary of State, the Washington agreement between Lebanon and the Israeli regime was signed last Friday.

The agreement claims to guarantee Lebanon's sovereignty. However, on the one hand, it calls for the disarmament of the Lebanese resistance, while on the other, Benjamin Netanyahu declared immediately after the agreement was signed that Israel would remain in the "security zone" in southern Lebanon and would not allow displaced residents to return.

The agreement also includes other provisions that align with Israel's interests, while offering only limited promises regarding improvements to Lebanon's economic situation.

The question, therefore, is: Why could the Washington agreement pave the way for a new phase of internal strife in Lebanon?

The first reason is that there is no national consensus in Lebanon regarding the agreement. On the contrary, it has exposed deep political divisions across the country.

In response to the agreement, Hezbollah described it as "humiliating" and lacking legitimacy, while the Amal Movement said it was contrary to Lebanon's national interests. The Free Patriotic Movement, led by Gebran Bassil, also criticized the text of the agreement, arguing that it could prolong Israel's occupation.

In addition, the Islamic Group (al-Jama'a al-Islamiyya), the Council of Muslim Scholars, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, the Lebanese Communist Party, Talal Arslan, and Walid Jumblatt all criticized the agreement's provisions, describing them as a threat to Lebanon's sovereignty and stability.

By contrast, the Lebanese Forces, led by Samir Geagea, the Kataeb Party, headed by Sami Gemayel, and a number of lawmakers aligned with Western countries have endorsed the agreement, describing it as a step toward stability in Lebanon and a means of resolving the issue of Hezbollah's weapons.

Commenting on the situation, the Lebanese news website Elnashra wrote:

"A deep divide has emerged in Lebanon over this document."

The government, represented by President Joseph Aoun and his supporting political camp, views the agreement as a necessary and pragmatic path to halt the country's systematic destruction. In this view, preserving the state's institutions requires sacrificing Hezbollah's weapons—even though Hezbollah has been regarded by its supporters as a defender of Lebanon for decades.

In contrast, Hezbollah's support base and its allied factions firmly reject this approach. They consider the agreement a document of surrender that would hand Lebanon over to its adversaries and dismantle the country's deterrence equation. In their view, implementing the agreement amounts to a high-risk gamble with Lebanon's territorial integrity.

Commenting on the issue, the Lebanese news website Elnashra wrote:

"The government, represented by President Joseph Aoun and the team supporting him, sees this agreement as an unavoidable and realistic gateway to stopping systematic destruction, preferring to sacrifice Hezbollah's weapons in order to preserve the state. In contrast, Hezbollah's support base and its allies categorically reject this course, viewing it as a document for Lebanon's surrender that strips the country of its deterrent capability. They regard the implementation of the agreement as a high-risk gamble with Lebanon's future."

Another factor is that the Washington agreement conditions the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon and improvements in the country's economic situation on the disarmament of the Lebanese resistance.

Addressing this point, Elnashra wrote:

"In its first clause, the agreement presents itself as a guarantor of Lebanon's sovereignty and the withdrawal of the Israeli army from the country. However, this logic suffers from a fundamental structural flaw, because Clause 2 explicitly links that withdrawal to the 'verified disarmament of armed groups' and the dismantling of their infrastructure."

According to Elnashra, this amounts to an "impossible condition":

"It requires the Lebanese Army to accomplish what the Israeli army itself was unable to achieve. Since the voluntary disarmament of Hezbollah appears impossible, this clause provides Tel Aviv with a legal and convenient pretext to remain on Lebanese territory."

According to this analysis, the new source of internal discord created by the agreement is its implicit recognition of Israel's continued occupation of parts of Lebanon.

A third factor is that the sharp divisions the agreement has exposed within Lebanon could lead to internal confrontation—a possibility that Nabih Berri specifically warned about.

The Speaker of Parliament said:

"The greatest danger of this agreement is that it will create internal division and set the Lebanese against one another, directly serving Israel's interests. This agreement is a sedition that threatens the unity of Lebanon and its people. When I describe this agreement as 'sedition,' it is the highest level of political warning."

For these reasons, Elnashra concluded in its analysis:

"The trilateral framework agreement cannot be regarded as a blueprint for lasting peace. Rather, it is a time bomb for Lebanon, granting Israel a license to prolong its occupation while providing the U.S. administration with a media victory. At the same time, it leaves Lebanon trapped between the prospect of internal conflict and the acceptance of permanent occupation."