Israel Kept Bombing Lebanon Two Days After Signing a Peace Deal — and Hezbollah Says It Isn’t Bound by It

Two days after a U.S.-brokered framework agreement between Israel and Lebanon was signed in Washington on June 26, 2026, Israel resumed air strikes on targets in southern Lebanon on June 28. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced the framework deal following five rounds of negotiations, describing it as a path toward “lasting peace and security.” The agreement calls for a phased Israeli withdrawal from parts of southern Lebanon and the deployment of the Lebanese army, but explicitly ties any Israeli pullback to the “verified disarmament of non-state armed groups” — language understood as a direct reference to Hezbollah. Lebanon’s state-run National News Agency reported a series of Israeli strikes in the south on June 28. The Israeli military confirmed that one of its soldiers was killed in combat in southern Lebanon during the same period [1, 2].

Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem rejected the agreement on June 27 in a public statement, calling it “humiliating” and “a surrender of sovereignty” and pledging that his fighters would neither disarm nor leave the battlefield. Qassem argued that tying Israel’s withdrawal to Hezbollah’s disarmament effectively legitimizes Israel’s indefinite military presence inside Lebanon and “crossed all red lines.” Far-right Israeli politicians also opposed the deal, contending it requires an eventual withdrawal from territory they regard as essential to Israel’s long-term security. Each side has publicly framed the same document as a victory on its own terms, even as the two parties most directly capable of obstructing it — Hezbollah and the Israeli far right — have both announced they will not accept its terms [2, 3, 4].

Why It Sucks:

Lebanese Government and Civilians

• Israel signed a peace deal and resumed bombing within 48 hours. Lebanon’s government accepted a U.S.-brokered framework meant to end the fighting, only for Israel to continue strikes on Lebanese territory days after the signing — leaving the Lebanese state holding an agreement that Israel has not stopped violating in practice [1, 2].
• The deal does not unconditionally end the Israeli occupation. Rather than requiring Israeli forces to withdraw on a fixed timeline, the framework ties withdrawal to Hezbollah’s verified disarmament — a condition Hezbollah has flatly refused — giving Israel effective veto power over when, or whether, it ever actually leaves southern Lebanese territory [2, 3].
• Lebanese civilians are trapped between two armed parties who both reject the deal. With Hezbollah refusing to disarm and far-right Israeli politicians opposing withdrawal, Lebanon’s civilian population is caught between two non-compliant parties that the Lebanese government has no power to compel — and strikes in the south continue while the framework agreement exists on paper [1, 2, 4].

Israeli Security Establishment

• Hezbollah’s public rejection of the deal proves there is no disarmament partner. When Hezbollah’s leader declares the framework “humiliating” and vows his fighters will neither disarm nor withdraw, Israeli security officials argue there is no alternative to continued military operations — allowing a fully armed and openly hostile Hezbollah to remain on Israel’s northern border is not a security policy any Israeli government can accept [2, 3].
• Withdrawal linked to disarmament is the only workable framework. Israeli security planners argue that an unconditional withdrawal before verified Hezbollah disarmament would simply allow Hezbollah to rearm and regroup in vacated territory, recreating the exact threat environment that triggered the war — making the disarmament linkage not a loophole but the entire strategic logic of the agreement [2].
• An Israeli soldier died in the south after the deal was signed. The combat death of an Israeli soldier in southern Lebanon on June 28 — while the framework agreement was in force — demonstrates that Hezbollah fighters remain active, armed, and engaged, directly validating the military’s argument that Israel cannot cease operations based solely on a paper agreement [1].

Hezbollah and Resistance Axis Supporters

• The deal was signed by a government that does not control the south. Lebanon’s elected government agreed to terms that directly affect Hezbollah’s weapons and fighters — without their participation or consent — producing a framework that demands Hezbollah’s disarmament while giving them no seat at the table and no guarantee of what they receive in exchange [3, 4].
• Tying withdrawal to disarmament is a permanent occupation trap. From Hezbollah’s perspective, the framework creates a structure in which Israel can perpetually delay withdrawal by claiming disarmament is “unverified,” keeping its forces inside Lebanon indefinitely while requiring Hezbollah to surrender its weapons first — a sequencing Qassem explicitly called a crossing of “all red lines” [2, 3].
• Israel’s strikes after signing confirm the deal is cover, not peace. Hezbollah argues that Israel’s resumption of airstrikes within two days of the framework signing proves what they said from the outset: the agreement is diplomatic cover for the continuation of military operations, not a genuine step toward ending the occupation — and that disarming under active bombardment would be surrender, not compromise [1, 4].

Sources & Citations:

[1] Al Jazeera: Israel Strikes Lebanon, Testing Days-Old Peace Deal
[2] Al Jazeera: In Lebanon, Framework Agreement Signed With Israel Spurs Protest, Criticism
[3] Al Jazeera: Hezbollah Rejects Israel-Lebanon Agreement as Israeli Attacks Hit South
[4] Axios: Israel, Lebanon Agree to Full Ceasefire, but Hezbollah Rejects It