Israel has laid out five conditions for withdrawing from southern Lebanon during U.S.-mediated negotiations in Washington, according to Israeli and regional media reports citing security sources in Tel Aviv, exposing deep divisions with Hezbollah and the Lebanese government over the terms of any potential ceasefire arrangement.

The conditions, reported by the Hebrew-language website Nziv, reflect what Israeli security officials describe as lessons learned from previous conflicts with Hezbollah and are aimed at preventing the Iran-backed group from rebuilding its military infrastructure in southern Lebanon.

According to the reports, Israel is seeking a tougher enforcement mechanism than the existing framework under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which ended the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah. Israeli officials reportedly believe the current arrangements failed to stop Hezbollah from rearming over the years.

Under the proposed framework, responsibility for enforcing any future agreement would be divided among a multinational force, the Lebanese Army and Israel itself, with Tel Aviv insisting on maintaining the right to intervene militarily against what it describes as emerging threats or violations.

The first Israeli condition centers on security and military freedom of action. Israel reportedly rejected relying solely on guarantees from the Lebanese Army or the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL), insisting instead on preserving the ability to carry out military operations against Hezbollah targets in southern Lebanon whenever deemed necessary.

The condition also includes preventive strikes against Hezbollah infrastructure, weapons depots, tunnels and military sites that Israel believes could be rebuilt after the conflict. Israel is additionally demanding unrestricted aerial access over Lebanese territory for intelligence and military purposes, according to the reports.

The second condition calls for the creation of a buffer zone extending to the Litani River, free of Hezbollah fighters and military activity. Israeli officials also reportedly want to prevent residents from returning to a number of villages along the border, arguing that Hezbollah has historically embedded itself within civilian communities.

According to the reports, the Israeli military designated dozens of southern Lebanese villages — around 60 villages — as restricted areas for civilians until further notice.

The third condition involves the establishment of a stricter international monitoring mechanism than the current UNIFIL mandate, with direct involvement from the United States and France in supervising and reporting violations.

Under the proposed arrangement, Lebanon would be expected to address violations within a short timeframe. Failing that, Israel would reserve the right to act independently, according to the reports.

Israel has also reportedly agreed in principle to the deployment of 10,000 Lebanese soldiers in southern Lebanon, provided they become the only armed force operating in the area and function under international support and oversight to ensure no coordination with Hezbollah.

Any civilian structure allegedly used for military purposes — including homes suspected of storing rockets or containing tunnels — would be considered a legitimate target for demolition under the Israeli proposal.

The fourth condition focuses on preventing Hezbollah from rearming. Israel is reportedly demanding strict monitoring of weapons smuggling routes into Lebanon, stretching from Syria’s Daraa region to Beirut’s port and other entry points.

The proposal also calls on the Lebanese government to ban unauthorized weapons possession and prevent local weapons manufacturing.

Under the fifth condition, Israel reportedly refused to withdraw from five military positions it currently occupies inside southern Lebanon. Israeli officials are said to view the strategic points as necessary for surveillance and early-warning purposes, even after most Israeli forces pull back from the area.

The Israeli demands have reportedly widened the gap between the parties and complicated negotiations aimed at securing a broader ceasefire agreement.

Hezbollah has rejected the conditions outright through statements by lawmakers and political officials, describing them as tantamount to “total surrender.”

The group particularly opposed Israel’s insistence on retaining operational freedom inside Lebanon, calling it a violation of Lebanese sovereignty and “a trap aimed at humiliating the country.”

Hezbollah has conditioned any long-term ceasefire on a full Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon and restrictions on Israeli military operations.

Lebanese Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri warned that any continued Israeli military presence in southern Lebanon, or attempts to impose military separation zones, would face armed resistance. He also called for international guarantees to halt Israeli attacks before any political progress could be achieved.

The reported Israeli conditions have also placed the Lebanese government in a politically difficult position.

While Beirut is seeking a ceasefire and supports deploying the Lebanese Army as the sole armed force in the south, it has struggled to impose Hezbollah’s disarmament or take direct measures against the group on the ground.

Despite pressure from Washington for broader negotiations, Lebanese officials have reportedly informed mediators that Beirut is unwilling to formally sign a peace agreement with Israel. Instead, Lebanon would limit any arrangement to security understandings linked to a ceasefire framework, according to the reports.