Lebanon-Israel agreement is unlikely to be implemented: Maariv. . .
The framework agreement ratified by the Lebanese government and "Israel" is “beautiful on paper,” but its chances of being implemented in reality are slim, the Israeli newspaper Maarivreported on Wednesday.
In an analysis of the agreement, the newspaper argued that the accord stirs “mixed and contradictory feelings,” noting that while it represents a political step toward an alleged peace agreement, the prevailing conditions offer little room for optimism regarding its actual execution on the ground.
Maariv characterized the achievement as primarily an “American achievement”, even if only on paper, noting that the US administration is seeking to preserve the memorandum of understanding it reached with Iran. For that reason, Washington is aiming to “defuse the Lebanese mine” as much as possible, especially after Tehran succeeded in reconnecting with that arena, the report stated.
High probability of remaining ‘dead letter’
For "Israel", the signing of the agreement is still considered an “achievement,” according to Maariv, but the likelihood that it will remain a “dead letter” remains high.
The newspaper argued that enabling "Israel" to allow the Lebanese government to implement what it wishes to carry out would require a degree of political wisdom that "Tel Aviv has lacked in recent years".
Maariv also stressed that Washington must act firmly toward "Israel" to allow the “complex and fragile experimental process” to be carried out on the ground, if it is implemented at all.
Furthermore, the paper pointed out that the differences between US President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are “deep and difficult.” Nevertheless, the situation calls for an “American babysitter” to improve the chances of the agreement’s success, should it succeed.
A aper mirage in the desert of diplomacy
Echoing these reports, Zaman Yisrael, the Arabic-language edition of The Times of Israel, the US-brokered framework between "Israel" and Lebanon was dismissed as not only worthless but potentially explosive, a diplomatic misfire that could ricochet back with devastating consequences.
"The framework agreement with Lebanon is an illusion that will blow up in our faces," the outlet charged, arguing that Jerusalem had secured "nothing" of substance. Rather than a strategic triumph, the accords were portrayed as a reluctant concession pried from a Washington weary of entanglements in West Asia, a superpower eager to dust off its hands and move on.
The piece painted a grim picture of "Israel's" current standing, describing it as being in "a very bad situation," shackled to commitments "not worth the paper they are written on". It drew a sharp, sardonic parallel between the Lebanon deal and what it called the Trump administration's habit of peddling grand, unmoored visions, likening the agreement to the president's past talk of "hotels and casinos in Gaza" or an "Iran without nuclear weapons or ballistic missiles." The underlying message: pretty slogans, poor reality.
According to the critique, Washington's eagerness to finalize the deal had less to do with regional stability and more with handing President Trump "another celebratory announcement", a shiny wrapper around an empty box.
Meanwhile, in a separate but revealing subplot, the daily Israel Hayom reported that while the security establishment has formally lent its backing to the Beirut agreement, senior security sources are privately nursing deep reservations. The path to implementation, they warned, is "long and full of obstacles," and the odds of genuine success remain, in their sober assessment, "not great".