The latest US-backed ceasefire proposal announced on Wednesday between Lebanon and Israel has introduced a new and largely undefined concept into negotiations: the "pilot zones".
The term appeared in Washington's announcement following a fourth round of talks between Lebanese and Israeli officials this week, but few details were provided about what the zones would look like, who would oversee them, or how they would operate.
The ambiguity has fuelled debate in Lebanon over whether the proposal advances Israeli objectives while placing immediate obligations on Lebanon without guaranteeing an Israeli withdrawal from occupied territory or an end to Israeli attacks. What are the proposed pilot zones? According to the US announcement, Israel and Lebanon agreed to move quickly towards establishing "pilot zones" in which the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) would exercise exclusive control "to the exclusion of all non-state actors".
In practical terms, this would mean areas where the Lebanese army becomes the sole armed force on the ground and where no armed groups would be permitted to operate.
Retired Lebanese Brigadier General Bassam Yassin, who headed Lebanon's delegation during the US and UN-mediated maritime border negotiations with Israel in 2020, described the zones as designated areas where the Lebanese army would deploy.
"The army enters it, searches it and ensures that no weapons other than those belonging to the Lebanese state are present," Yassin told The New Arab. He said the concept envisages dividing territory into multiple zones that would be implemented sequentially, with the army moving from one area to the next.
The zones are intended to function as gradual test areas where the Lebanese state can demonstrate exclusive authority before any possible expansion of the model elsewhere. Where would the pilot zones be established? Lebanese President Joseph Aoun indicated that Beirut had proposed beginning in several locations in south Lebanon, including Eastern Zawtar, Western Zawtar, Yahmar and the area around Beaufort Castle, known in Arabic as Qalaat al-Shaqif.
However, the proposed locations have themselves become a source of controversy. Eastern and Western Zawtar lie north of the Litani River, despite the ceasefire's security arrangements focusing on territory south of the river.
"If the entire agreement concerns security arrangements south of the Litani, why is an area north of the Litani being used as a test zone?" Yassin told The New Arab. No official map has been released and the precise boundaries of the zones remain unclear.
One of the central disputes is whether the zones would include territory currently occupied by Israeli forces.
According to Yassin, the Israeli interpretation is that the pilot zones would initially be established outside areas currently occupied by Israel, with the Lebanese army responsible for enforcing the arrangement.
Lebanese officials, however, have suggested the proposal should be linked to Israeli withdrawal and the deployment of the Lebanese army into areas currently under occupation.
The disagreement, Yassin said, reflects fundamentally different readings of the proposal. How are the pilot zones different from Resolution 1701? The concept bears some resemblance to UN Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war and called for the deployment of the Lebanese army south of the Litani River.
Yassin argues that the core elements of the proposal already exist under Resolution 1701, which provides for the deployment of the Lebanese army south of the Litani and the absence of non-state weapons.
The Lebanese government declared the area south of the Litani free of non-state armed groups in December 2025. However, Israeli military operations continued despite no retaliatory fire from Hezbollah .
What appears new is the creation of designated "pilot zones" that would be evaluated before being expanded elsewhere, alongside a new US-led implementation mechanism.
Unlike Resolution 1701, which applied broadly across the entire area south of the Litani, the pilot zones would operate as designated test areas before any possible expansion elsewhere.
Another key difference is that the latest proposal appears tied to a new US-led security framework rather than the existing ceasefire monitoring arrangements involving the United Nations, France and UNIFIL . Why is there disagreement over what the zones mean? Much of the controversy stems from competing interpretations of the proposal. According to Yassin, Israel views the pilot zones as a way to test the Lebanese army's willingness and ability to remove Hezbollah's weapons from specific areas before gradually expanding the model elsewhere.
After failing to eliminate Hezbollah's arsenal through relentless military operations since 2024, Israel was now seeking to pursue that objective through security arrangements implemented by the Lebanese state.
"Israel failed to remove Hezbollah's weapons over 17 months," Yassin said. "It now wants to implement this idea through the Lebanese army."
Under this interpretation, Israel could potentially offer concessions, such as withdrawing from certain locations, as implementation progresses.
In Beirut's reading, Israel would first withdraw from territory it currently occupies in southern Lebanon. The Lebanese army would then deploy into those areas and take control, turning the pilot zones into a mechanism for restoring Lebanese state authority over occupied land.
Meanwhile, Israeli forces on Thursday began withdrawing from parts of Debbine in south Lebanon while the Lebanese army moved into positions vacated by Israeli troops, providing an early example of the kind of handover that could feature in future arrangements.
However, questions remain over whether any broader implementation would be accompanied by further Israeli withdrawals.
Another source of concern in Lebanon is the perceived imbalance between the obligations imposed on each side. The withdrawal of Hezbollah fighters, deployment of the Lebanese army and implementation of pilot zones are clearly outlined, while questions surrounding Israeli withdrawal, reconstruction, displaced residents and prisoners remain largely undefined. Who decides whether the pilot zones succeed? One of the least understood aspects of the proposal is who would ultimately determine whether a pilot zone has successfully met its objectives.
While the Lebanese army would be responsible for deploying into the designated areas, conducting searches and ensuring the absence of weapons and armed groups, Yassin argues that the final judgement would not rest with Lebanese authorities.
According to the framework outlined in Washington, implementation would take place under US supervision, meaning that decisions on whether conditions have been met and whether the model should be expanded would effectively be taken by the United States in coordination with Israel.
"The Lebanese army carries out the implementation, but it does not decide whether the zone has become a successful model zone," Yassin said.
"The United States and Israel are effectively the ones deciding whether the conditions have been fulfilled and whether Israeli forces withdraw."
Yassin believes the mechanism risks replacing the existing ceasefire monitoring structure involving France and UNIFIL with a new US-led framework in which Washington becomes the primary arbiter of implementation. What happens outside the pilot zones? Another major unanswered question concerns areas that fall outside the designated zones.
The proposal sets out a framework for specific pilot areas but provides little clarity on how the rest of south Lebanon would be treated during implementation.
Israel has meanwhile continued to insist on maintaining freedom of military action and has linked stability in Beirut's southern suburbs to security conditions in northern Israel.
Israeli Defence Minister Israel Katz had earlier declared that Israeli forces would "continue fire and ground operations... without the return of the [displaced Lebanese] population".
Yassin notes that the proposal clearly defines what Lebanon must do while leaving Israel's obligations vague.
The withdrawal of Hezbollah personnel, deployment of the Lebanese army and implementation of pilot zones are all explicitly addressed.
By contrast, questions surrounding Israeli withdrawal, continued military operations, reconstruction, prisoners and the return of displaced residents remain largely absent. Why is Hezbollah rejecting the proposal? Hezbollah has rejected any arrangement that links the end of hostilities to the disarmament of the group.
In a speech on Thursday, Hezbollah Secretary-General Naim Qassem described the outcome of the Washington negotiations as "humiliating" and "shameful" for Lebanon.
He argued that any proposal centred on disarming the group while Israeli attacks continue amounts to surrender.
Qassem stressed that Hezbollah had given no commitment not to respond to Israeli attacks and insisted that "resistance will continue as long as enemy forces remain on Lebanese territory".
"We are concerned only with stopping the aggression completely, achieving a ceasefire and securing Israel's withdrawal," he said.
Yassin believes Hezbollah is unlikely to accept army searches for weapons while Israeli forces remain on Lebanese territory.
"As long as there is occupation, there will be resistance," he said.
More than 3,500 people have been killed, and almost 10,000 wounded, by Israel in Lebanon since 2 March alone.