Among the agreement’s strongest critics is Jonathan Pollard, who argues that the limited “pilot withdrawal” is less significant than the precedent it establishes.By World Israel News StaffSupporters of Israel’s new U.S.-brokered framework agreement with Lebanon are calling it a major diplomatic and security breakthrough—one they believe could fundamentally reshape the security situation along Israel’s northern border.Under the agreement, Israel will begin a limited withdrawal from two designated “pilot areas” in southern Lebanon as the Lebanese Armed Forces deploy to restore government control and begin disarming Hezbollah. Israeli officials insist that any further withdrawals will be conditioned on Hezbollah being dismantled and no longer posing a threat to Israel’s northern communities.Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has defended the framework as a responsible path toward removing Hezbollah from southern Lebanon without requiring Israel to maintain an indefinite military deployment. Supporters also point to American oversight of the agreement, increased support for the Lebanese Armed Forces, and mechanisms tying additional Israeli withdrawals to Hezbollah’s disarmament as safeguards intended to protect Israel’s security.On paper, the agreement offers an attractive vision: a stronger Lebanese state, a weaker Hezbollah, and a quieter northern border.Whether that vision can become reality, however, is the question increasingly being raised by Israeli security experts and political leaders who argue that the agreement rests on several assumptions that have yet to be tested.Among them is Dr. Mordechai Kedar, a leading Israeli scholar of the Arab world and former IDF Military Intelligence officer, who believes the agreement places a crucial test before the Lebanese Army.According to Kedar, Israel is effectively giving the Lebanese Armed Forces an opportunity to prove they can assume responsibility for southern Lebanon by withdrawing from the initial pilot areas and allowing Lebanese troops to eliminate Hezbollah’s remaining presence there.But Kedar questions whether the Lebanese Army is capable of carrying out that mission.He notes that many Lebanese soldiers are Shiites, raising concerns about whether they would truly confront Hezbollah with the determination required to dismantle the Iranian-backed terrorist organization. He likens the situation to security personnel who officially serve the state while remaining loyal to another force behind the scenes.Kedar also points to the reality on the ground in southern Lebanon. Christian villages, he says, have generally been left alone as long as they did not harbor Hezbollah operatives, while Israel acted directly whenever Hezbollah attempted to embed itself there. In his view, assigning security responsibilities to the Lebanese Army does not address the central problem: Hezbollah’s deep-rooted influence over much of Lebanon.National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir has voiced a different concern. He argues that Israel should not withdraw from any territory before Hezbollah has been fully defeated, warning that any premature withdrawal risks allowing the terrorist organization to survive, regroup and eventually threaten Israel’s northern communities once again.Among the agreement’s strongest critics is Jonathan Pollard, who argues that the limited “pilot withdrawal” is less significant than the precedent it establishes.“The minimal nature of our agreed-upon ‘pilot’ withdrawal… is clearly just the beginning of our complete retreat from southern Lebanon,” Pollard said. He warned that once Israel accepts the principle of withdrawing, “American pressure for further ‘meaningful’ withdrawals will commence.”For Pollard, the implications extend well beyond Lebanon. He argues that if Israel accepts phased withdrawals under U.S. pressure today, similar pressure could eventually be applied to Judea and Samaria—or even Gaza.Pollard also challenges the military strategy behind the agreement itself. Rather than relying on another buffer zone, he argues Israel should have sought to decisively eliminate Hezbollah’s military capability before discussing any territorial withdrawal.“We’ve been here before,” he said. “The objective of recreating a small security buffer… would never work. Since it didn’t in the past, why would anybody… think it would today?”That historical comparison resonates with many Israelis. Israel maintained a security zone in southern Lebanon for years before withdrawing in 2000. Although the buffer provided a measure of protection, Hezbollah survived, expanded its influence and, over the following years, built one of the world’s largest terrorist rocket arsenals—ultimately becoming a far greater threat than it had been before Israel’s withdrawal.Supporters of the new framework insist this time is different. They argue that the agreement includes safeguards that were absent in the past, including U.S. oversight, stronger commitments from the Lebanese government and explicit conditions requiring Hezbollah’s disarmament before additional Israeli withdrawals. They also point to Hezbollah’s rejection of the agreement as evidence that the terrorist organization views it as a genuine threat.Critics, however, question whether those assurances will withstand the realities on the ground. They argue that Hezbollah has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to outlast international agreements, preserve its military capabilities and rebuild its strength despite diplomatic promises. They also question whether the Lebanese Army possesses either the ability or the willingness to confront Hezbollah directly.Ultimately, the debate surrounding the agreement centers on this question: Can Hezbollah actually be disarmed and stripped of its control over southern Lebanon, or is Israel once again placing its faith in guarantees that may prove impossible to enforce?The post Israel-Lebanon deal: breakthrough or the beginning of another strategic mistake? appeared first on World Israel News.