Lebanon's President Joseph Aoun met with President Trump at the White House on Tuesday, marking the first such visit by a Lebanese head of state in nearly two decades. The meeting comes after Lebanon and Israel signed a trilateral agreement on June 26 under the auspices of the Trump administration to resume diplomatic relations and end their long history of conflict. However, as special correspondent Simona Foltyn reports from Southern Lebanon, the deal is facing stiff opposition from residents who remain skeptical of its promise of peace.
The agreement requires the Lebanese government to first disarm Hezbollah before Israeli forces will undertake what it calls a "progressive redeployment" from occupied territory. Israel currently controls a six-mile strip all along its border with Lebanon, an area that accounts for roughly 7 percent of Lebanon's territory. The deal has been hailed in Washington as a diplomatic success, but on the ground, destruction persists and violence continues.
What the Right Is Saying
Administration officials and supporters of the agreement frame it as a historic step toward restoring Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity. Nada Hamadeh Moawad, Lebanon's ambassador to the United States, said at the signing ceremony: "The trilateral framework we signed today is a first step on the road to restoring Lebanese sovereignty and territorial integrity, securing a permanent and final cessation of hostilities, enabling our people to go back to their land."
Supporters note that the agreement represents the first formal diplomatic framework between Lebanon and Israel in decades, with U.S. involvement as guarantor. The deal establishes "pilot zones" where the Lebanese Army is building up presence to implement disarmament of Hezbollah in areas not occupied by Israeli forces. Once Israel is satisfied with this process, it should redeploy from Lebanese territory, according to the agreement's terms.
Israeli military officials have stated they struck vehicles approaching what they call security zones that posed threats to their forces. The Israeli government has defended its continued operations as necessary for self-defense while the disarmament process proceeds.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive critics argue the agreement amounts to capitulation to Israeli and American demands without securing meaningful concessions or a guaranteed withdrawal timeline. Mohammed Awada, a resident of Nabatieh whose shop was destroyed by Israeli strikes, said through an interpreter: "This agreement protects them more than it protects us. It's more in their than in our interests. They are playing games. Why haven't they withdrawn? What is their intention? Is their intention to take the south?"
Many southern Lebanese continue to support Hezbollah despite the group's decision to reenter the regional war last March in support of Iran. Residents argue that fighters protected communities from Israeli advances. Zeinab Shhadi, a resident of Froun village where more than 200 homes were destroyed, said through an interpreter: "Those young men protected us. If it weren't for them, Israel would have taken Froun and destroyed it like the other villages."
Wissam Kanso, whose wife Esperanza Ghandour was killed in an Israeli drone strike on July 6, argues that Lebanon's deal has come at the expense of justice for victims. He said through an interpreter: "We haven't heard any condemnation for the killings, not from the president of the republic, not from the prime minister, nor from any official in this government." Human rights groups have raised concerns that Israel's systematic demolitions of border villages to create a depopulated buffer zone could amount to war crimes.
What the Numbers Show
According to Lebanon's Health Ministry, Israeli attacks have killed dozens of people since the June 26 agreement was signed. More than 200 homes were destroyed in Froun village alone during Israel's aerial campaign against Hezbollah positions. Nabatieh, once a bustling commercial town, has been described as mostly destroyed by residents, with Mohammed Awada estimating through an interpreter: "With these strikes, they set us back 10, 15, 20 years for Nabatieh to return to what it once was."
Israel currently occupies approximately 7 percent of Lebanese territory along a six-mile strip demarcated by a Yellow Line similar to the boundary in Gaza. The agreement does not include the word "withdrawal" nor does it stipulate a timeline for Israeli troop redeployment, raising concerns among critics about the prospect of indefinite occupation.
The Bottom Line
The trilateral agreement represents a significant diplomatic development but faces immediate challenges on the ground. Residents of southern Lebanon remain deeply skeptical, viewing the deal as a surrender rather than a path to peace. The continued violence since the agreement's signing, including civilian casualties, has undermined confidence in its promises. The absence of a clear withdrawal timeline leaves questions about whether Israel intends to maintain its occupation zone permanently or will eventually redeploy as Hezbollah disarmament proceeds. What happens next depends largely on whether both parties perceive the other as fulfilling their obligations under the framework and whether civilian casualties cease.