BEIRUT: Lebanon’s Presidential Palace was awaiting the response of Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, a close Hezbollah ally, to the ceasefire framework outlined in Thursday’s joint Lebanese-Israeli declaration issued after a new round of US-mediated negotiations.
Berri’s reaction was mixed, backing some elements while rejecting others.
In an official statement, he said: “It might have been positive had it included a comprehensive, unconditional ceasefire and a complete Israeli withdrawal from occupied territories.”
He added: “The agreement is a trap as it was laden with additional conditions, most notably the requirement of a Hezbollah ceasefire and the evacuation of all its members from south of the Litani River.”
At the same time, Berri endorsed “only two fundamental points: First, a complete and comprehensive ceasefire, without restriction or condition, on land, sea and air, without bulldozing or demolition.
“And second, a parallel withdrawal of Hezbollah from south of the Litani River alongside Israel’s withdrawal from the areas it has occupied.
“As for the rest of the text, it is unjust.”
His position echoed that of Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, who commented publicly for the first time after Hezbollah rejected the declaration.
Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam. (AFP)
Salam said: “The path of negotiation is the least costly option for Lebanon and the shortest route to securing Israel’s withdrawal and the return of people to their homes.”
He also urged Iran to spare southern Lebanon from becoming a battleground, saying: “We are the owners of this homeland, and Lebanon is not a bargaining chip, nor is the south a backup battlefield for anyone.”
FASTFACTS
• Israel and Lebanon agreed during US-mediated June 2-3 talks on a conditional ceasefire tied to Hezbollah stopping attacks and Israel withdrawing from south Lebanon.
• A joint statement said both sides would meet again during the week of June 22 for a comprehensive agreement.
• Hezbollah dismissed the declaration as a US-backed Lebanese-Israeli understanding aimed at dismantling its combat capabilities.
Just hours after the declaration was announced, Iran appeared to distance itself from the initiative.
Esmail Qaani, commander of the country’ Quds Force, spoke before Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem’s scheduled address, declaring that “the minimum demand of the resistance in Lebanon is the withdrawal of the occupying entity to the pre-war status quo.”
Hezbollah interpreted the declaration as a US-backed Lebanese-Israeli understanding aimed at dismantling its combat capabilities. Its political rejection was accompanied by military action, prompting Israel to retaliate and triggering renewed clashes.
The following day, Israel intensified operations in towns deep inside southern Lebanon. Residents of several villages were ordered to evacuate ahead of airstrikes that killed and wounded several people, including a doctor.
People carrying belongings flee after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the military to attack targets in the southern suburbs of Beirut on June 1, 2026. (Reuters)
The Israeli military said the escalation was a response to “Hezbollah’s violation of the ceasefire agreement and its targeting of Israel’s home front.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chose not to bring the contents of the declaration before the security cabinet on Thursday evening and did not seek a vote on a ceasefire.
According to Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, Netanyahu said there was currently no agreement because Hezbollah opposed it, adding that he would present a proposal for approval only if circumstances changed.
The declaration tied a comprehensive ceasefire to a series of steps by Hezbollah, including its withdrawal from south of the Litani River, the creation of pilot zones to establish the state’s exclusive authority, the disarmament of all armed factions and progress toward a non-aggression agreement.
Its language closely mirrors recent Lebanese government decisions affirming the state’s monopoly on arms and treating Hezbollah’s military wing as operating outside state authority.
Much of the declaration’s political significance stemmed from its insistence that any arrangement to end hostilities should be negotiated directly between the Lebanese and Israeli governments under US sponsorship, rather than through separate channels.
Israeli and Lebanese delegations attend a meeting hosted by the US State Department in Washington, DC, on June 3, 2026. (AFP)
The text also signaled the absence of hostile intent between the two sides, the continuation of direct talks and movement toward a broader political settlement.
“The Lebanon-Israel declaration is historic — a pathway to ending 80 years of official enmity. It was also deliberately designed for Hezbollah to refuse. And its leader obliged on cue,” Firas Maksad, managing director for the Middle East and North Africa at Eurasia Group, told CNN.
“But de-escalation leading to a ceasefire remains possible. Hezbollah is weak. Israel has established escalation dominance — seizing strategic territory and threatening to resume bombing of Beirut’s southern suburbs.
“The real watch-point isn’t the rhetoric. It’s whether Hezbollah limits attacks to Israeli forces inside Lebanon rather than continuing to strike northern Israel.
“Such restraint eases Netanyahu’s domestic pressure — and clears a major stumbling block in US-Iran negotiations.”
A Lebanese official told Arab News that the presidency had been awaiting Berri’s position, given his role as the principal channel for communicating Hezbollah’s views. Neither the presidency nor Berri’s office would confirm whether his statement represented the party’s official position.
Days earlier, Berri told The New York Times that Hezbollah was open to a genuine ceasefire and that only US President Donald Trump could compel Israel to honor one.
Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri. (AFP/File photo)
Through the US ambassador to Lebanon, Berri reportedly told Washington: “Give me a ceasefire, and I will handle the rest.”
Bilal Abdullah, an MP from the Progressive Socialist Party bloc, told Arab News that Lebanon was trying to preserve the US-backed negotiating track and prevent it from becoming entangled with broader US-Iran talks — leverage that Tehran preferred to retain.
Abdullah described the framework as “the deal that is possible.”
He asked: “What is Hezbollah’s alternative if it rejects the agreement? It is war.”
“Hezbollah must understand that Lebanon’s capabilities are limited. We hope reason prevails, that the suffering of the people of the south and the Bekaa is eased, and that a diplomatic and political solution is reached in the end — for Lebanon’s sake alone.”
President Joseph Aoun said the declaration, with its provisions favorable to Lebanon, represented the last opportunity to secure a final and comprehensive ceasefire. He warned that all parties would bear responsibility if they failed to respond.
Lebanon's President Joseph Aoun. (AFP photo)
“The US will set the timetable and framework for implementing the ceasefire, which could come into effect within 24 hours of the parties’ approval and the provision of the necessary guarantees,” Aoun said.
“President Donald Trump will personally guarantee its implementation,” he added.
In an interview with CNN on Friday, Aoun accused Iran of using Lebanon as a “bargaining chip” in its negotiations with the US and Israel.
Pledging to do “whatever it takes” to save his country, Aoun said the Lebanese people were “fed up” with the ongoing conflict.
Addressing Iran, he said: “You are not trying to help us… the people of Lebanon are paying the price… for the sake of your own interest.”
He also stressed that Lebanon’s interests “do not coincide” with Iran’s.
For his part, Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem described the outcome of what he called “the futile and humiliating direct negotiations for Lebanon” as “completely unacceptable.”
Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem. (AFP/File photo)
“The resistance has made no commitment to cease responding to attacks. As long as our villages remain under threat, the settlements will remain under threat as well. If the aggression continues, we will confront it with all available means and strike wherever we choose and are capable of reaching,” he warned.
Asked about Berri’s position, Lebanese Forces MP Fadi Karam told Arab News: “He is holding the stick from the middle. He understands that the negotiations have produced the best deal Lebanon is likely to get, but he prefers to accommodate Hezbollah and keep his options open. Lebanon, however, will pay a heavy price for that.
“Hezbollah and Speaker Berri’s belief that the US president will continue to pressure Netanyahu to prevent him from escalating the war in Lebanon is mistaken. At some point, Netanyahu will take action, and Lebanon will pay the price.
“The state’s responsibility is not limited to issuing statements but requires taking practical measures against anyone who obstructs the establishment of the state or opposes its sovereign path and demonstrating its ability to impose its authority over all Lebanese territory.”
Political analyst Wajih Qanso described reactions to the declaration as “largely rhetorical and intended to persuade. The real issue lies elsewhere.”
“The agreement carries significant implications, chief among them Iran’s exclusion from the process,” he said.
“That means Hezbollah has lost its political cover and finds itself increasingly cornered following the Lebanese government’s recent decisions regarding its weapons.
For political analyst Wajih Qanso, the Lebanese-Israeli declaration issued after a new round of US-mediated negotiations means that the price of a ceasefire agreement is the Hezbollah party’s weapons. (AFP/ File photo)
“It now needs legitimacy, which is why it has sought to link the issue of its arms to the US-Iran negotiations in an effort to secure international recognition and establish a rationale for its position within any future agreement with Iran.
“Iran, for its part, considers Lebanon a winning card in every respect. However, the statement rejected any external interference, thus removing Iran from the game and from Lebanon.
“The surprising aspect of the joint statement was its mention of ‘no hostile intentions between the two countries.’ This implies that any outstanding issues between Lebanon and Israel will be resolved diplomatically.
“The statement also included an affirmation that Hezbollah’s weapons are undesirable, meaning that the price of a ceasefire agreement is the party’s weapons. Consequently, Hezbollah rejected the statement because it discovered that all its bets were wrong and losing, and its fate is now uncertain.
“The ‘pilot zones’ mentioned in the joint statement effectively mean, in light of the statement, that neither weapons nor Hezbollah members will be present south of the Litani River.”
Qanso said he believed Berri broadly supported the initiative and wanted to avoid further escalation, with his objections focused more on wording than substance.
By contrast, Yossi Mekelberg, professor of international relations and associate fellow at Chatham House’s MENA Programme, argued that Washington had moved too quickly in pursuing a conditional ceasefire before addressing the wider issue of Iran, Hezbollah’s principal backer.
Opinion
This section contains relevant reference points, placed in (Opinion field)
He told Arab News: “If you have negotiations that are not by nature bilateral, but you have quite a few partners — it’s Israel, Hezbollah, the Lebanese government, Iran, the US — you need to deal with the complexity of the issue in terms of actors and challenges.
“And again, a ceasefire is a ceasefire, as long as everyone agrees. The question is, is this administration capable of dealing with the root causes? Is it capable of moving beyond the ceasefire?
“A ceasefire is an interim and should never remain the final objective. The end of the day is whether Hezbollah can move from being a militia into a political party only.”
Mekelberg added: “Can the Lebanese government take control all the way to the border? When and how is Israel going to withdraw as they are deeper with the forces that are even beyond the Litani? So, all of this needs to be negotiated.
“Beyond the ceasefire that, for now, Hezbollah hasn’t accepted, you need to see what’s the timeline to resolve all this issue, basically going to UN Security Resolution 1701 and everything that follows.”
He said: “The Israeli government and the Lebanese government have the same interest. But the Israeli government behaves in the way it always behaves, using force and no strategy and looking for the allies.
“And in this sense, the Lebanese army needs to be supported, to reinforce, and also with international forces. But it’s about making sure that the border is secure. There are no rockets or missiles and drones from either side at the end of the occupation.”
Mekelberg stressed the need for the Lebanese army to control the border: “It needs all the help it can get. The main issue for Lebanon is that Hezbollah serves the Lebanese interest, not the Iranian interest. As long as this is the situation, we’ll see more of these hostilities.”
Asked whether military force would ultimately determine the outcome, he said: “At the end of the day, there is no real beef between Israel and Lebanon. The issue is Hezbollah. It is ensuring that there is a border in the sea, a land border which both sides respect.
Caption
“It’s a Lebanese interest as much as an Israeli interest. And it’s the interest of the region, and it has to be part of the overall agreements or understanding.
“It’s an abnormal situation to have a militia which is stronger than the army itself and completely sponsored by a foreign country that doesn’t have the interest of Lebanon, and obviously of Israel, at heart, but its own interest. So as long as this is not resolved, Israel will probably continue to use force, and Hezbollah will use it as an excuse.”
A Lebanese political source said recent developments in Washington had reinforced the view that the Lebanese state was achieving results through diplomacy, while the latest conflict had highlighted Hezbollah’s inability to halt Israeli advances or impose new realities on the ground.
The source said that through Arab and international diplomacy, as well as direct negotiations, Beirut had helped contain threats against the capital and its southern suburbs, while securing US pressure on Israel not to target those areas.
The international community now sees the Lebanese state as the principal interlocutor for any future security arrangements or understandings.
As a result, attention has shifted from battlefield developments to negotiations, with the Lebanese state emerging as an indispensable party to any future settlement.
