That distinction is the story. The agreement is framed around restoring Lebanese sovereignty, addressing Hezbollah's arms and allowing Israel to return to its borders once threats to Israeli citizens are removed. AP reported that officials did not initially disclose the full details, which means the document cannot yet be treated as a final peace arrangement or a detailed implementation plan.
The diplomatic symbolism is real. Israel and Lebanon do not have normal relations, and the United States signing alongside them gives the framework more weight than another round of indirect talking points. Al Jazeera's explainer said US-brokered talks began in April and that the United States is also a signatory to the trilateral agreement.
The implementation problem is just as real. Hezbollah is not a party to the framework, yet its weapons are central to what the agreement says it is meant to resolve. Al Jazeera reported that Hezbollah had demanded an unconditional Israeli withdrawal before the signing. Israel's stated security condition points in the other direction: withdrawal is tied to the removal of threats to Israeli civilians.
For Lebanon, the sovereignty language carries two pressures at once. It supports Beirut's claim that armed groups should not control decisions of war and peace in the south. It also exposes the weakness of the Lebanese state if it cannot compel Hezbollah or guarantee security after an Israeli pullback.
For Israel, the framework offers a diplomatic channel to reduce cross-border conflict without treating Hezbollah as a legitimate negotiating partner. But the same exclusion leaves a practical gap: a framework can name disarmament as an objective; it cannot by itself disarm a movement embedded in Lebanese politics and territory.