On June 26, 2026, Israel and Lebanon signed a major agreement in Washington, brokered by the U.S. government. It is the most detailed peace plan the two countries have agreed to since a ceasefire stopped fighting in November 2024.

The deal, published by the State Department, commits Lebanon to take back full control of its own territory and to disarm Hezbollah — a powerful military organization that has operated in southern Lebanon largely outside Lebanese government control for decades. Both countries formally agreed that they have a right to exist as neighboring nations in peace. For Lebanon, this is significant: Hezbollah has historically blocked such statements to maintain its independence from Lebanese state authority.

A new committee made up of officials from Israel, Lebanon, and the United States will monitor whether the agreement is actually happening, according to Secretary of State Rubio. The deal also says Israeli forces will only withdraw as threats to Israeli citizens are removed — linking the pace of Israel's exit to what Lebanon can actually accomplish on the ground.

How we got here

The path to this agreement was messier than it appears. In early June, negotiators outlined ceasefire terms in a joint statement, but within a day Hezbollah said no to those terms, and Israel's Defense Minister said military operations would continue anyway. A ceasefire was eventually set for June 19 at 4 p.m., according to Reuters, though whether Hezbollah would stick to it remained uncertain.

Hezbollah was not invited to the Washington negotiations at all, per NBC News. The group has also rejected the deal. This is the core problem the agreement now faces.

Lebanese President Joseph Aoun said the deal restores Lebanese sovereignty — meaning his government should be able to rebuild without any armed group answering only to itself. He was speaking directly to Hezbollah's claim to operate militarily as it chooses. On that same day, Reuters reported that Israel was still dropping leaflets warning people to leave southern Lebanese towns. The gap between words on paper and what is happening on the ground was impossible to miss.

What Lebanon is actually required to do

This deal asks Lebanon to do something it has never formally promised before: disarm Hezbollah completely. An earlier UN resolution in 2006 called for Hezbollah's disarmament after that war, but nothing was ever enforced. This new agreement creates a specific committee with power to verify that the disarmament is happening. It also ties Israel's withdrawal directly to whether the Lebanese military actually removes the threat.

But there is a real question: can the Lebanese military actually do this? Historically, the Lebanese army has lacked both the military strength and the political support to directly confront Hezbollah. Recent circumstances have changed things: Israeli strikes have weakened Hezbollah's fighting force over the past year, Iran — which funds and arms Hezbollah — is facing its own regional troubles, and Lebanese leaders now have reason to want to rebuild their country. Whether that adds up to the Lebanese military actually being able to move against Hezbollah remains to be seen.

Context matters here: in January 2025, Israel set a 60-day timeline for withdrawing its forces, per a statement from Israel's Prime Minister's Office. That timeline came and went without a full Israeli pullout. That is why the U.S. pushed for this new, more structured agreement.

For the United States, this deal is trying to finish what the November 2024 ceasefire could not. That ceasefire stopped the fighting, but it did not address what would happen to Hezbollah's weapons. This new framework makes the rules clear: Lebanon must act, the committee must check that it happened, and Israel can stay until the threat is gone.

The biggest obstacle

Hezbollah has flatly rejected the agreement. The group still has armed fighters and supporters throughout Lebanon. If the Lebanese military cannot or does not move against Hezbollah's weapons and fighters, the monitoring committee will have a credibility problem on day one. When that happens, the clause saying Israel can stay until threats are removed may become the most important part of the entire deal.