Analysts say that Friday's agreement aimed at ending the Lebanon war is heavily weighted in Israel's favour and warn that it could push the country towards civil war.
The 14-point framework signed in Washington was the product of weeks of US-mediated talks aimed at ending the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah .
The agreement requires Lebanon to press ahead with the full disarmament of Hezbollah after which Israel says it will pull back its forces, which currently occupy a fifth of the country.
But it contains no Israeli commitments to fully withdraw and no binding timeframe for its implementation, leaving the door open to a long-term Israeli occupation in the south, analysts say.
Hezbollah has vowed to resist any attempt to strip it of its weapons. Its leader Naim Qassem swiftly rejected the agreement, calling it "humiliating, shameful, and a surrender of sovereignty".
"The document reflects the balance of power on the ground, which overwhelmingly favours Israel," Lebanese political analyst Karim Bitar told The New Arab . 'Recipe for disaster' Facing pressure from Israel and the US, Prime Minister Nawaf Salam's government had prior to the Iran war embarked on a phased plan to disarm Hezbollah in the south of the country.
It said earlier this year it had fully disarmed the group and destroyed its military infrastructure south of the Litani River.
But the government's efforts were called into question in March when Hezbollah fighters re-emerged in the south and began attacking Israel in response to the war on Iran.
There are concerns that the army will now come under intense pressure to forcibly disarm the group, a move it has so far resisted out of fear of triggering a civil conflict.
Cilina Nasser, an independent researcher and human rights expert, said the agreement would be a "recipe for disaster" should the army resort to force.
"Any serious attempt to enforce the Lebanese government's commitment to disarm Hezbollah would likely generate serious internal tensions and could even trigger civil strife," she told The New Arab .
The agreement does not set out how the army will decommission the weapons or how the US and Israel will assess its progress. These details have been kicked to a separate annex that does not appear to have been agreed.
Fears of violence arose soon after the deal was signed when influential Hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah appeared to threaten a civil war should the army try to seize its weapons.
The agreement was met with fury among the country's Shia community, hundreds of whom protested in the streets of Beirut on Friday night.
Analysts also question whether the under-resourced and financially stricken Lebanese army is capable of taking on Hezbollah.
Bitar called full disarmament "an extremely demanding benchmark" given the army's limited capabilities. "It is very unlikely to be implemented in any meaningful way," he said.
Geopolitical analyst Joe Macaron also cast doubt on on whether the government will be able to implement the agreement.
"The cost of implementing this agreement is high without buy-in from Hezbollah and the Iranian regime," he told The New Arab . "Disarming Hezbollah is a complicated endeavor that requires more than a signed agreement between Lebanese and Israeli authorities." Withdraw or redeploy? The agreement does not impose binding commitments on Israel to withdraw from the country but instead talks of a "redeployment" of its forces as Hezbollah is disarmed.
Israel currently occupies around a fifth of Lebanon and has gradually expanded its "security zone" deeper into the country.
Nasser said the vague language could allow Israel to simply move its forces from one area of the country to another or merely reduce the number of troops. It may also allow it to continue to exercise effective control over the area even after a withdrawal, as it did in Gaza after its disengagement in 2005, she said.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has explicitly ruled out withdrawing from the security zone and said that troops will remain inside the country for as long as necessary. Meanwhile, far-right ministers in the government have called for a long-term occupation of southern Lebanon irrespective of Hezbollah's status.
Should any dispute over the agreement arise, Lebanon will be at a disadvantage due to the US's lead role in the negotiations.
"The United States is unlikely to act as a neutral mediator and will almost certainly align with Israeli positions whenever disputes arise over the interpretation or implementation of the agreement," Bitar said.
"This creates a fundamentally asymmetric negotiating environment in which Lebanon has little leverage and few effective guarantees." No recourse The framework also appears to shield Israel from accountability relating to violations of international law committed during the war.
Under Article 13, Lebanon has agreed not to pursue any "hostile or adverse actions" in international institutions, which suggests it will be prevented from taking diplomatic and legal action at organisations such as the UN or the International Criminal Court.
Human rights organisations have warned that Israel may have committed multiple war crimes in Lebanon, including the forcible displacement of more than one million people and the deliberate targeting of civilians.
Israel has killed more than 300 medics and rescue workers, and almost a dozen journalists since 2 March, many in "double tap" strikes . They are among the more than 4,200 killed over the past four months, which include hundreds of women and children.
Nasser said it was "very disappointing" that the government had agreed not to pursue legal accountability.
"This is an abandonment of the many thousands of victims who have been killed or maimed, and those whose lives have been shattered as a result of the destruction of their homes or businesses," she said.