15JUN

Israel rejects a deal it never signed

3 min read

11:40UTC

Netanyahu said Israel had been saved from annihilation, then admitted he had not read the memorandum's text. Ben-Gvir called it non-binding; Smotrich demanded Beirut demolitions; Gantz called the whole thing a strategic failure.

← Back to Trump declares Iran war over Jump to analysis ↓

ConflictDeveloping

Key takeaway

Israel's whole political spectrum rejected the memorandum, and none of the objectors carries a signature Geneva can bind.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told a press conference Israel had "saved itself from annihilation", then admitted in the same appearance that he had not seen the memorandum's text. ¹ He confirmed Israeli forces would stay in southern Lebanon regardless of the deal. Israel signed nothing in Islamabad and is not a party to the instrument, yet its government spent the signing weekend rejecting terms it says it has not read.

The coalition went further than the prime minister. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir posted that "Trump's agreement does not bind us in any way". Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called for ten buildings in Beirut destroyed for every drone Hezbollah fires, extending the threat to Tyre, Sidon and the Bekaa. The objections were not confined to the right: opposition leader Benny Gantz, a former defence minister, called the deal a "strategic failure". ²

Trump had publicly threatened Netanyahu only days earlier over Israel's strike on the Karun field , so an Israeli repudiation of his memorandum reads as defiance in Washington as much as in Jerusalem. A ceasefire announced over a government that depends on ministers who reject any Lebanon withdrawal rests on whoever can compel Israel, and the one actor with that leverage has not used it.

Deep Analysis

In plain English

Washington and Tehran signed the Islamabad MOU; Israel was excluded from the Islamabad negotiations and received no advance text before 15 June. But its terms affect Israel directly because Iran has armed and backed Hezbollah in Lebanon, and the MOU is supposed to bring all that fighting to an end. Netanyahu said on 15 June that Israel had 'saved itself from annihilation' but admitted he had not read the text. National Security Minister Ben-Gvir said the deal does not bind Israel. Finance Minister Smotrich called for ten Beirut buildings destroyed per Hezbollah drone. Opposition leader Gantz called it a strategic failure. Right and centre in Israel each rejected the same agreement, for different reasons.

Deep Analysis

Root Causes

Netanyahu's coalition structure drives the MOU rejection pattern. Ben-Gvir's Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power party) and Smotrich's Religious Zionism party together hold enough Knesset seats to collapse the government if Netanyahu implements a deal that withdraws IDF forces from Lebanon or Gaza. These parties ran on a platform of permanent IDF presence in occupied territory; accepting an MOU that even implies eventual withdrawal would trigger a coalition crisis.

Gantz's opposition rejection from the centre adds a different dimension: he left the emergency war cabinet in June 2025 and bases his objection on the deferred nuclear terms rather than coalition politics. Leaving 440.9 kg of HEU inside Iran under no inspection for 60 days is Gantz's stated grounds, a position that overlaps with Israeli security establishment concerns rather than settler ideology.

What could happen next?

Risk
Smotrich's demand for ten Beirut buildings destroyed per Hezbollah drone, if acted on, would trigger the Lebanon violation clause Araghchi has already invoked, giving Iran legal cover to exit the MOU.
Immediate · Assessed
Consequence
Netanyahu's admission that he had not read the MOU text confirms Israel received no advance consultation; Washington must now decide whether to pressure Israel publicly or accept a deal its closest ally openly repudiates.
Short term · Assessed
Risk
Ben-Gvir's and Smotrich's public repudiation creates a political record that Netanyahu can cite domestically to justify non-compliance without formally withdrawing from a deal he never signed.
Medium term · Suggested

Source Landscape

This story draws on centre-left-leaning sources from United States

United States

Primary parallel: When Rabin signed Oslo II on 28 September 1995, Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu led protests outside the Knesset and the opposition voted unanimously against it. A far-right incitement campaign that framed Rabin as a traitor culminated on 4 November 1995 when Yigal Amir assassinated him. Domestic hardliners publicly repudiating a US-brokered deal while the prime minister champions it carries a recorded trajectory toward operational sabotage in Israeli history.

Counter-parallel: After the 1978 Camp David Accords, Menachem Begin's government faced domestic criticism from settlement advocates. Begin proceeded to Knesset ratification and the Egypt-Israel Peace Treaty was signed in 1979. Israeli domestic political rejection of a US-brokered framework has been overridden before when the Prime Minister chose ratification over coalition solidarity.

Consensus view: Researchers at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) note that Netanyahu's admission he had not read the MOU text is itself the structural finding: Israel was not consulted in the Islamabad negotiations, was not a party, and received no advance text.

Ben-Gvir's public repudiation follows directly. The across-the-board Israeli rejection, from far-right coalition members to centre-opposition Gantz, reflects the fact that no Israeli stakeholder was given a document to accept or reject before the signing.

Counter-view: Analysts at the Mitvim Institute in Jerusalem argue that the political spectrum's rejection disguises a narrower divide: Netanyahu's phrase 'saved Israel from annihilation' signals he privately assesses the MOU as better than continued war, while Ben-Gvir and Smotrich's public repudiation targets the domestic settler constituency rather than Washington.

The operative question, they argue, is not whether Israel rejects the deal rhetorically but whether Netanyahu orders the IDF to stop operations in Lebanon.

Key tension: Whether the uniform Israeli rejection across right and centre constitutes a genuine policy position or a coalition-management exercise that Netanyahu can reverse once the domestic audience has been satisfied.

First Reported In

Update #129 · Iran deal signed, but no paper to show

The Hill· 16 Jun 2026

Read original →

Causes and effects

Caused by

Hezbollah fired on Israel hours after signing

Israel's across-the-board rejection of the MOU coincided with Hezbollah combat that its own officials refused to halt.

Occurred 15 Jun 2026

Read story →

This Event

Israel rejects a deal it never signed

A ceasefire is being signed in Geneva over the head of the party still doing the fighting, with no Israeli signature anyone can hold.

Different Perspectives

G7 Leaders (ex-US)

Kananaskis ended without a joint communique for the first time in the body's history; Macron credited G7 pressure with speeding the ceasefire while Trump publicly denied the summit played any role. The split between US and European G7 partners over what the memorandum means for sanctions relief was the direct cause of the text failure.

Protection-and-Indemnity insurers

London-based P&I mutual clubs declined to underwrite Hormuz crossings while the IRGC Strait Authority remained operational, making the passage commercially impassable regardless of the memorandum's terms. Shipping operators said they would wait weeks for on-water conditions to change before routing tankers through.

IRGC Persian Gulf Strait Authority

P&I mutual insurers declined to underwrite Hormuz crossings on 15-16 June while the IRGC's Strait Authority remained in operation, reducing actual transits to two vessels against a pre-war daily rate of 94. The corps' revenue-generating toll mechanism, created 5 May and collecting $1.5-2 million per VLCC in crypto, has not been stood down and cannot be dissolved by Ghalibaf's signature.

Israeli Cabinet

Netanyahu admitted he had not seen the memorandum's text but confirmed IDF forces would stay in southern Lebanon; Finance Minister Smotrich called for ten Beirut buildings destroyed per Hezbollah drone and National Security Minister Ben-Gvir said the agreement 'does not bind us in any way'. Israel signed nothing in Islamabad and is the central unresolved variable in the Lebanon clause.

Iranian Majlis hardliners

Around 60 MPs signed a letter demanding Ghalibaf explain the memorandum; Paydari faction MP Sabeti said the deal violates the Supreme Leader's red lines, and MP Aboutorabi argued the document carries binding obligations 'that cannot be resolved by simply changing the name'. President Pezeshkian defended the negotiators against accusations of betrayal, confirming the fracture inside Iran's political class.

US Vice President JD Vance

Vance signed on 15 June and said the memorandum was 'not conditioned on Israel withdrawing from Lebanon' while also saying it 'envisioned a ceasefire that covers both Iran and Lebanon'. The two formulations are incompatible and hand Iran's foreign minister a ready-made violation claim before Geneva.