In a notable development making headlines this week, hezbollah supporters and many others in Lebanon view latest agreement with Israel as a ‘ surrender of sovereignty ’. Hezbollah chief Naim Qassem has rejected the framework agreement authorized by Lebanon and Israel in Washington DC, calling it “ humiliating, shameful and a surrender of sovereignty ” for Beirut.

Historical Background

To understand the full scope of this development, it is important to consider the broader context.

In a statement released on Saturday, Qassem rejected linking Israel ’ s withdrawal from Lebanon to Hezbollah ’ s disarmament, which is a key part of the US-mediated agreement signed on Friday.

The Hezbollah leader as well accused Lebanon ’ s government of legitimising Israel ’ s occupation “ for many years to come ” by signing the agreement with Israel, saying that it “ could lead to the annexation of these lands to the Zionist entity ”.

Observers have also noted that instead, Khodr said the text is a “ path towards normalisation [ between Israel and Lebanon] – the two states both recognise each other ’ s right to exist in ‘ peace ’, declare intention to formally end state of war, pursue direct negotiations under US mediation, establish permanent channels of direct communication and begin drafting a comprehensive peace and security agreement ”.

World Reaction

The reaction from the broader community of observers has been significant.

They were protesting the agreement, as well as Israeli forces remaining in Lebanese territory and continuing Israeli air raids in southern Lebanon.

It has also emerged that regardless of the agreement, Lebanon ’ s state-run Nationwide News Agency ( NNA) declared Israeli forces bombed near the southern towns of Markaba and Nabatieh al-Fawqa on Saturday morning.

Meanwhile, sources familiar with the matter indicate that nNA indicated Israeli forces bombed overnight near the town of Markaba, 1.5km ( 1 mile) from the Israel-Lebanon border.

Geopolitical Implications

Beyond the immediate headlines, this development could reshape how the issue is handled.

Lebanese officials seem optimistic regarding the deal and its potential for ending hostilities with neighbouring Israel, despite Hezbollah not being involved in the agreement nor the talks that preceded it.

In a detail that has not gone unnoticed, lebanese MP and leader of the Free Patriotic Movement, Gebran Bassil, said the framework agreement between Israel and Lebanon “ requires responsible engagement ”.

Significantly, in reaction to the Hezbollah-led protests, Public Prosecutor Judge Ahmad Rami al-Hajj issued a judicial order, tasking the Lebanese security forces with preventing riots, NNA reported.

Observers have also noted that alon Pinkas, an Israeli prior ambassador and consul general in New York, told Al Jazeera that he ’ s “ very doubtful and sceptical that this [ agreement] will work out because the deal is between Israel and Lebanon with the US, and Israel and Lebanon do not really have territorial issues or any kind of issues; the issue here is Hezbollah ”.

It has also emerged that hezbollah MP Hassan Fadlallah told Al Jazeera that any attempt by the Lebanese army to enforce a Washington-brokered agreement would lead to “ civil war ”.

Looking Ahead

The implications of what has transpired will take time to fully understand. In the interim, this development stands as a significant moment in a story that is still being written.