Trump Announces Israel-Hezbollah Ceasefire, Netanyahu Sets Conditions

US President Donald Trump announced on June 1, following a phone call with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, that Israel and Lebanon’s Hezbollah had agreed to halt their mutual attacks. For Belgrade, which for years has balanced Washington’s demands against its own foreign-policy neutrality, every American announcement of de-escalation in the Middle East carries a double weight: it shapes energy prices on the European market and sets the frame within which Serbian diplomacy measures its own moves toward the region.

In his statement, Trump also said Israel had agreed not to send ground troops into Beirut, which would be the first tangible sign of de-escalation after weeks of exchanged fire. The difficulty is that Netanyahu’s office did not confirm the deal in the same terms, but instead attached conditions to it, and Israeli strikes in southern Lebanon did not stop even in the hours after the announcement from the White House.

What does the deal Washington describes actually look like?

According to Trump, the two leaders reached an agreement in principle to halt the attacks, with an American guarantee that the Israeli military would not enter the Lebanese capital. Netanyahu, however, tied that agreement to Hezbollah’s conduct on the ground. The Israeli prime minister sent a clear message that the exception holds if the armed group keeps striking Israeli cities.

The conditions Netanyahu set out can be reduced to three points:

• If Hezbollah does not stop its rocket attacks on Israeli cities, Israel reserves the right to strike targets in Beirut.
• The Israeli military continues operations in southern Lebanon regardless of the ceasefire announcement.
• The conversation between the two leaders was, according to several accounts, tense, suggesting there is no full agreement among allies on the sequence of moves.

If Hezbollah does not stop attacking Israeli cities, Israel will strike targets in Beirut, and Israeli military operations in southern Lebanon continue.

That reservation is essential. A ceasefire that one side announces as achieved while the other ties it to the adversary’s conduct is, in practice, a fragile truce whose fate depends on the next incident along the line of separation.

Why do the strikes continue despite the announcement?

The clearest sign that the talk of a ceasefire has not yet become reality came from southern Lebanon. An Israeli strike near the Jabal Amel hospital in the city of Tyre, carried out on June 1, killed four people and wounded 127. Among the wounded, according to available figures, are 39 members of the hospital staff, hitting precisely the infrastructure that any truce would have to keep out of reach.

The fact that the strike happened on the same day the announcement of a halt to attacks came from Washington exposes the gap between the political message and the situation on the ground. While the White House speaks the language of a concluded deal, the Israeli military continues its operations, and southern Lebanon keeps recording casualties. For European capitals, including those tracking how Serbia positions its foreign policy, this means the announced de-escalation reads for now as a statement of intent rather than a verifiable halt to hostilities.

The open question is how long Trump’s word on a deal will hold under the pressure of the first days, if the strikes in southern Lebanon continue at the same pace. How do you view an American guarantee that one side declares achieved while the other attaches conditions to it?