The catch in Lebanon’s accord with Israel

Lebanon is in turmoil. The country is more divided than ever after the framework agreement the Lebanese government signed with Israel. The country is divided between those who approve of the accord with Israel and those who think it cements the Israeli occupation. However, in this accord, the most disturbing clause is clause 13.
The deal clearly favors Israel. Lebanon has mandatory, defined and irreversible commitments. The agreement states that “the government of Lebanon reaffirms its resolute and irreversible commitment to restoring and exercising full sovereignty over all its territory.” It adds that the state should “achieve the complete and verified disarmament of all nonstate armed groups.”
Israel, on the other hand, has only conditional commitments probably based on its assessment of the situation — basically, at its own discretion. Israel can remain in the country as long as it thinks Hezbollah is still armed and poses a threat to it.
Who defines what posing a threat means and what exactly “armed” means in this context? Israel. The agreement does not even speak of withdrawal. Instead, it speaks of redeployment. It states that the Lebanese military “will restore effective sovereign authority over all Lebanese territory, pending the verified disarmament of nonstate armed groups and dismantlement of associated infrastructure,” thus enabling Israel “to progressively redeploy out of the Lebanese territory.”
In this context, which clearly shows that Israel has the upper hand, comes clause 13. It states that the two parties, in order to show goodwill, should not raise any complaints in international forums. This means that the Lebanese government has agreed to exonerate Israel of all wrongdoing. The forced displacement, the controlled demolition of villages, the use of white phosphorus and the destruction of olive trees should not be contested under this framework agreement. This clause will encourage Israel to continue its aggressive actions knowing it will face no consequences.
Clause 13 states: “Israel and Lebanon commit to take good faith measures that demonstrate positive intent, including the cessation of all hostile or adverse actions in international political or legal fora.” Legally speaking, Lebanon has not waived its right to raise complaints against Israel or given up the rights of Lebanese citizens who want to seek justice. It has only committed to cease pursuing them for now. Lebanon has suspended this right while the negotiations continue. By doing so, it has given up a strong card without getting any concessions from Israel in return. Lebanon could have used such complaints against Israel as a negotiating card and an important pressure point.
Lebanon should be collecting evidence and organizing accurate official records that can be used against Israel. International criminal investigations rely heavily on accurate documentation. Exact times of death, the chronology of events, the preservation of physical evidence and the integrity of official records are all important components in reconstructing what happened. Even seemingly minor discrepancies in timelines or documentation can complicate the subsequent legal analysis because investigators, prosecutors and defense teams all examine chronology with great precision. 

Clause 13 will encourage Israel to continue its aggressive actions knowing it will face no consequences.

Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib

Look at the case of Ali Shehab, a Europe-based Lebanese researcher specializing in media psychology. On March 12, Shehab lost his brother Mohammed and four-year-old niece Taline. They were killed inside their home in Aramoun, Lebanon, during an Israeli airstrike. In the days that followed, an official Israeli military statement acknowledged that the intended target of the operation was someone else.
For Ali’s family, that statement immediately transformed grief into a search for answers. If the target was someone else, how did a father and his young daughter lose their lives inside their home? What standards of distinction, proportionality and precaution were applied? For Ali, those questions deserved careful legal examination rather than a political debate. This pushed him to start his effort to seek justice for Mohammed and Taline.
Like many families affected by war, he quickly discovered that surviving relatives often become investigators by necessity. He started collecting photographs, preserving videos, archiving digital evidence, reconstructing timelines, locating witnesses and studying international humanitarian law — not because he was trained to do so but because he feared that, if he did not preserve the evidence immediately, it might disappear forever.
The documentation was not the main challenge facing Ali. The main challenge was dealing with the Lebanese institutions. The administrative delays and inconsistent procedures created a significant obstacle for him, as well as for other families seeking accountability. Basic documentation that should be promptly produced through official processes was delayed, incomplete or difficult to obtain. He told me that families often spend months attempting to secure records, verify information and preserve evidence, while simultaneously coping with their profound personal loss.
Ali last month spoke about his loss at the UN in Geneva. His audience consisted of diplomats, legal experts, journalists and international investigators. Ali said he is not seeking sympathy but justice for his brother and his niece because that is what they deserve. But the Lebanese state is distancing itself from them. What is really disturbing is that the Lebanese government, instead of helping individuals like Ali who have lost loved ones, is creating hurdles for them. If the government supported them, it would also be supporting its own position vis-a-vis Israel in these negotiations. Nevertheless, it has chosen to give away this card while disappointing its own citizens.

• Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib is a specialist in US-Arab relations with a focus on lobbying. She is co-founder of the Research Center for Cooperation and Peace Building, a Lebanese nongovernmental organization focused on Track II.