Hezbollah has vowed to block the implementation of the US-backed framework agreement between Lebanon and Israel, as a majority of Lebanese political parties rejected or criticised the deal.
In comments to The New Arab, senior Hezbollah official and former minister Mahmoud Qomati described the agreement as "born dead", saying the group "will not allow it to be implemented" and would "confront it through every possible means".
"We will not allow the agreement, which was born dead, to be implemented, and we will confront it through every possible means," Qomati said, arguing that the accord effectively allows Israel to dictate the terms of its own withdrawal from southern Lebanon.
Despite rejecting the agreement outright, Qomati said Hezbollah would not resign from the Lebanese government "in the near term", saying the group wanted to preserve channels of communication while continuing to cooperate with the Lebanese army.
The remarks come as criticism of the Washington-brokered agreement extends well beyond Hezbollah.
According to public statements in Lebanese media, more than a dozen political parties and movements have either rejected the accord outright or sharply criticised it, while only four parties have publicly backed it - the Lebanese Forces, Kataeb Party, National Liberal Party and National Dialogue Party, all of which are staunchly anti-Hezbollah.
Those opposing or criticising the agreement include Hezbollah, its key ally the Amal Movement , the Free Patriotic Movement , the Progressive Socialist Party, the Marada Movement, the Islamic Group, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, the People's Movement, the Lebanese Communist Party and several smaller political parties and organisations.
Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri , and head of the Amal Movement, also rejected the agreement, describing it as "contradictory and impossible to implement" in comments to Lebanese daily L'Orient-Le Jour. Berri said the deal had been designed "to sow discord among the Lebanese" and warned against internal divisions, while arguing Lebanon remained bound by Arab League decisions and existing international resolutions.
He also praised Druze leader Walid Jumblatt 's criticism of the agreement and said a broader political current opposing the deal was beginning to emerge. No timetable for Israeli withdrawal Meanwhile, Israeli media continued to publish details of the agreement's unpublished security terms.
According to Channel 12 and Haaretz, the classified annex reportedly contains no timetable for either Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon or Hezbollah's disarmament. Instead, Israeli troop redeployments would depend on conditions on the ground rather than fixed deadlines.
The reports also said the annex allows Israeli forces to continue operating inside a designated "Yellow Line" against alleged emerging or imminent threats, while any expansion of pilot zones for the Lebanese army would require Israeli approval.
Separately, Israel Hayom, citing unnamed Gulf diplomatic sources, claimed Lebanese President Joseph Aoun had received security assurances from the United States for himself and senior officials supporting the agreement, and that American and allied intelligence services were helping protect members of Lebanon's government.
The framework agreement was signed in Washington on Friday by Lebanon, Israel and the United States as a roadmap towards a broader peace deal.
The agreement legitimises Israel's continued military presence and operations in southern Lebanon while failing to guarantee a full withdrawal from occupied Lebanese territory.
Legal experts have also questioned Article 13 of the agreement, warning that its commitment to halt "hostile or harmful actions" in international legal and political forums could be interpreted as limiting Lebanon's ability to pursue accountability for alleged Israeli war crimes through international courts and institutions.