If implemented, the framework agreement hammered out between Lebanon and Israel in June 2026 could serve as the most consequential agreement between the two countries in nearly 80 years.

But that is a big “if.” The deal envisions peaceful relations between the two states and lays out a road map to disarm the Shiite militant group Hezbollah, secure Israel’s full withdrawal from Lebanon and restore Lebanese sovereignty over its entire national territory.

As it stands now, all of those provisions are a far cry from reality. For one, Hezbollah has rejected the agreement outright. Meanwhile, Israel’s continued military operations risk undermining the domestic legitimacy of the Lebanese government and, ultimately, its ability to implement the agreement.

As experts on armed conflict, ceasefires and peace processes in the Middle East, we have studied past ceasefires between Israel and Hezbollah in 1993, 1996, 2006, 2024 and April 2026. Our forthcoming paper on the subject demonstrates a consistent pattern: Each agreement created only a temporary interval before hostilities recurred or only marginally reduced violence. Throughout, there appeared to be a tacit understanding between Hezbollah and Israel that conflict would eventually resume.

A history of ceasefire breakdowns

Lebanon and Israel have never normalized relations, but they do have a precedent for an agreement that successfully contained conflict. The 1949 U.N.-brokered Lebanese-Israeli General Armistice Agreement ended hostilities following the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. With sustained international backing and U.N. monitoring, it established the de facto border that largely remains in place today and prevented a return to full-scale war for roughly two decades.

That relative stability began to unravel in the 1970s as the Palestine Liberation Organization expanded its armed presence in Lebanon, provoking repeated clashes with Israel that culminated in Israel’s invasions of Lebanon in 1978 and 1982.

Since Israel’s 1982 full-scale invasion of Lebanon, agreements and ceasefires intended to end hostilities have repeatedly broken down. Parties have exploited lulls in fighting to buy time, rebuild........

© The Conversation