The strategic significance of the Israel-Lebanon framework agreement - opinion
Israel and Lebanon have signed a 14-point Trilateral Framework Agreement, marking a significant development in their bilateral relations. While not a formal peace treaty, the agreement includes mutual recognition of each country's right to exist in peace and security, which is historically notable given Lebanon's previous legal restrictions on such interactions. The agreement outlines a phased Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, contingent upon the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) demonstrating their capacity to disarm specific areas. This approach allows Israel to maintain control until it deems the regions secure, reducing risks in an environment marked by low mutual trust. Additionally, the agreement aims to weaken Hezbollah and Iran's influence by decoupling Lebanon's internal dynamics from regional conflicts involving Israel and the U.S. Both nations agree on a shared strategic goal of establishing Lebanon's exclusive authority over southern Lebanon and eventually defining a recognized sovereign border.
A recent security agreement between Israel and Lebanon has sparked significant debate among regional analysts and politicians, many of whom argue that the deal does not offer a resolution to the ongoing conflict but instead risks entrenching a prolonged stalemate. At the heart of this arrangement lies a seemingly unworkable compromise: Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon is conditional upon Hezbollah's disarmament, a demand that the Iran-backed militant group has firmly rejected. This situation presents a complex challenge for Lebanon, whose government lacks the necessary authority or capability to enforce such a condition.
Analysts suggest that the deal creates a scenario where Israel can maintain an indefinite military presence in southern Lebanon. This region became a focal point of contention when Hezbollah launched attacks against Israel on March 2, aligning with Iran's interests amid the broader U.S.-Iranian conflict. As a result, Israel's invasion of southern Lebanon led to the establishment of a buffer zone, approximately eight to ten kilometers deep, which serves as a protective measure for Israel's northern territories. However, the conditions tied to Israel's eventual withdrawal from this area appear to be unrealistic given the current geopolitical landscape.
The framework agreement, signed in Washington, acknowledges that Israel holds no territorial claims over Lebanon. It stipulates that the Lebanese Armed Forces' authority in the south is dependent on the verified disarmament of non-state armed groups, including Hezbollah. Despite these provisions, the Lebanese state finds itself caught between obligations it cannot fulfill and a lack of full sovereignty over its territory. This dynamic is exacerbated by the nature of Lebanon's political system, which is based on power-sharing among various sects rather than coercive measures. Consequently, the expectation that Lebanon must confront its most powerful armed faction without disrupting the delicate balance of power within the country seems impractical.
Critics of the agreement highlight the structural imbalances embedded within it. They note that while Lebanon faces substantial demands under the deal, there is no corresponding assurance of Israeli withdrawal. This asymmetry places a heavy burden on Lebanon, as highlighted by Michael Young, a Beirut-based analyst, who argues that the agreement enables Israel to remain in southern Lebanon indefinitely. Fawaz Gerges, a Lebanese scholar at the London School of Economics and Political Science, describes the deal as inherently flawed, emphasizing that the conditions set forth are virtually impossible to achieve in practice. He points out that Israel has already established a de facto buffer zone in southern Lebanon, which could potentially gain long-term diplomatic recognition, thus benefiting Israel politically.
The conflict involving Lebanon plays a crucial role in international efforts aimed at concluding the larger U.S.-Iranian war. According to Gerges, Washington's strategic decision to separate these conflicts has granted Israel more operational flexibility in Lebanon. This approach might contribute to fears of civil unrest within Lebanon, especially considering the fragile nature of its political structure and the influence wielded by Hezbollah.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu views the agreement as a milestone that could pave the way for broader peace negotiations. Nevertheless, Israeli forces continue their deployment in the designated security zone, asserting that they will maintain control until Hezbollah and other perceived threats are disarmed and no further danger exists from Lebanon. This stance underscores the complexity of achieving lasting peace in the region, as the interplay of national interests, regional dynamics, and internal challenges continues to shape the trajectory of the ongoing conflict.
Go to the primary sources (6)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
On June 28, 2026, Israeli military forces demolished a 200-meter-long terror tunnel operated by Hezbollah in southern Lebanon. The operation, conducted by the 551st Brigade with the assistance of Yahalom Combat Engineers, targeted a deeply buried tunnel containing hundreds of weapons and rocket-launching shafts. The IDF reported that 20 Hezbollah fighters, including 10 from the group’s elite Radwan Force, were killed during the operation, while 50 items of terrorist infrastructure were seized and destroyed. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz confirmed the action, stating that Israel had notified the United States beforehand. The tunnel, which could not be destroyed by airstrikes, was captured and dismantled through direct engagement.
Bias read (Right): The article frames the operation as a successful Israeli military effort against Hezbollah, emphasizing the threat posed by the terrorist organization and the necessity of such actions. The focus on the destruction of Hezbollah infrastructure and the casualties among militants aligns with a right-of
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): Detailed and verified account of the tunnel destruction. Highly objective and factual.
i24NEWSIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 906 days ago
Israel and Lebanon have signed a US-backed framework agreement that ties the Israeli military's withdrawal from southern Lebanon to Hezbollah's disarmament. The agreement outlines conditions under which the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) would begin their planned withdrawal, contingent upon Hezbollah fulfilling its commitments to disarming. The deal was facilitated by international mediation, particularly through U.S. diplomatic efforts, aiming to reduce tensions in the region. While the agreement represents a potential step toward de-escalation, it remains non-binding and requires further negotiations to establish concrete timelines and mechanisms for implementation.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the agreement as a balanced outcome of international diplomacy, emphasizing the conditional nature of both parties' actions without overtly favoring either side. It reports the terms of the agreement without apparent ideological slant, focusing on the procedural and geopolitical
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 90): This article clearly states the terms of the agreement and the involvement of the US, providing factual reporting without subjective interpretation. It remains objective throughout, presenting the agreement as a formal framework without editorializing.
The Times of IsraelIndependentRightFactual 95Objective 883 days ago
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited southern Lebanon and assured troops that the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) will not withdraw from the region as long as Hezbollah remains a threat. During the visit, Netanyahu credited the soldiers' efforts for a recent agreement involving Israel, Lebanon, and the U.S., which aims to achieve Hezbollah's disarmament to facilitate an Israeli withdrawal. He emphasized that Israel will not leave until the threat posed by Hezbollah is eliminated, describing the group as 'the most important link in the Iranian axis.' The agreement includes commitments from Lebanon to restore sovereignty through verified disarmament of non-state armed groups, though Hezbollah and its allies oppose it. Defense Minister Israel Katz echoed Netanyahu's stance, stating that the IDF will not withdraw 'a millimeter' until Hezbollah is disarmed. Meanwhile, reports suggest tensions persist, including an alleged Israeli strike in southern Lebanon and a Hezbollah operative killed by IDF forces.
Bias read (Right): The article frames the Israeli military presence in Lebanon as necessary and justified due to Hezbollah's continued threat, emphasizing Israel's strategic position and the perceived existential danger from Iran and Hezbollah. It highlights Netanyahu's strong rhetoric against Hezbollah and the 'Iran轴
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 88): Accurately reports Netanyahu's comments and the context of the agreement with Lebanon and the US. Maintains neutrality in presenting facts, though some phrasing leans toward praising military outcomes.
The Jerusalem PostIndependentRightFactual 95Objective 853 days ago
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced during a visit to Israeli troops stationed in Lebanon's security zone that the IDF will remain there until Hezbollah no longer poses a threat to Israel. Speaking to soldiers, Netanyahu emphasized the ongoing military campaign against Hezbollah, stating that the group possesses a large arsenal of missiles and rockets, though numbers have decreased significantly. He highlighted the success of operations that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of militants, including hundreds recently. Netanyahu compared the current situation in Lebanon to past efforts in Gaza, asserting that creating security zones prevents terrorist forces from operating on Israel's borders. He reiterated that if soldiers detect a threat, they must act immediately to ensure their safety.
Bias read (Right): The article frames the Israeli military presence in Lebanon as a necessary and justified response to Hezbollah's threat, emphasizing strength and decisive action. It highlights Netanyahu's leadership and portrays the military operations as successful and essential for national security. The language
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 85): Factually accurate reporting of Netanyahu's statements to soldiers in Lebanon, aligning with cross-source consensus. Objectivity slightly compromised by emotionally charged language like 'slap in the face' and emphasis on military success.
The Times of IsraelIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 854 days ago
Defense Minister Israel Katz stated that Israel has 'no territorial ambitions' in Lebanon but will not withdraw 'a millimeter' until Hezbollah is disarmed. His remarks followed a U.S.-brokered framework agreement between Israel and Lebanon aimed at ending their conflict, which includes provisions for verified disarmament of non-state armed groups and a progressive Israeli withdrawal. Lebanese President Joseph Aoun announced plans for the Lebanese army to deploy near the Israel-Lebanon border to displace Hezbollah. Meanwhile, Israel conducted airstrikes against Hezbollah positions in southern Lebanon and reported an IDF soldier was injured in an explosion. Katz emphasized that the IDF would maintain its presence in Lebanon indefinitely unless Hezbollah is fully disarmed, citing agreement with U.S. Central Command on maintaining security zones in Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza.
Bias read (Center): While the article discusses a politically sensitive issue involving regional tensions and military strategy, it presents multiple perspectives including Israeli military stance, Lebanese government actions, and U.S. involvement. The framing appears balanced, avoiding overtly positive or negative slr
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 85): Accurately reports the tunnel destruction and military details. Factually aligned with cross-source consensus. Objectivity maintained with neutral language describing military operations and outcomes.
The Times of IsraelIndependentRightFactual 95Objective 8523 days ago
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued a video message urging Lebanese citizens to 'join Israel' in peace, reject Hezbollah and Iran, and emphasized that Israel is not at war with Lebanon but only targeting Hezbollah. Israeli forces conducted airstrikes in southern Lebanon, reportedly killing at least 13 people, according to Lebanese security sources. Netanyahu claimed Israel has eliminated nearly 10,000 Hezbollah fighters and is working to clear southern Lebanon of the group.
Bias read (Right): The article presents Netanyahu's message without direct counterpoints or alternative perspectives from Lebanese officials or international actors. It emphasizes Netanyahu's claims about Hezbollah's weakness and Israel's strength, using terms like 'terror group,' 'fanatics,' and 'sick aims,' which do
Why these scores (Factual 95 · Objective 85): Accurately reports Netanyahu's speech content and includes quotes. Factually aligns with cross-source consensus on military actions and statements. Objectivity slightly compromised by emotionally charged language like 'sick aims' and 'terror group.'
The Times of IsraelIndependentLeftFactual 90Objective 853 days ago
A security deal between Israel and Lebanon, aimed at resolving their ongoing conflict with Hezbollah, is being criticized by regional analysts as potentially entrenching a stalemate rather than ending the war. The agreement ties Israel’s planned pullout from southern Lebanon to Hezbollah’s disarmament, a condition widely considered unattainable given Hezbollah’s refusal to disband and the lack of Lebanese governmental authority to enforce such measures. Analysts argue that the deal places excessive burdens on Lebanon while offering Israel no guarantees of withdrawal, effectively allowing Israel to maintain a long-term military presence in the region. The arrangement is seen as structurally flawed, with critics suggesting it could legitimize Israel’s occupation and deepen regional tensions. The deal also clashes with Lebanon’s fragile political system, which relies on power-sharing rather than coercion, further complicating efforts to achieve lasting peace.
Bias read (Left): The article frames the Israeli-Lebanese deal as inherently flawed and biased against Israel, emphasizing Hezbollah’s strength and Lebanon’s inability to enforce disarmament. It highlights the imbalance in the agreement, portraying Israel as having undue advantage while Lebanon bears disproportionate
Why these scores (Factual 90 · Objective 85): The article provides detailed information about the security annex of the Israel-Lebanon deal, citing verified sources. It remains largely objective in presenting the document's contents.
i24NEWSIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 8518 days ago
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Iran will not possess a nuclear weapon, regardless of whether an agreement is reached.
Bias read (Center): The statement is presented neutrally without apparent framing or slant. It reports Netanyahu's assertion directly without commentary or contextualization that would indicate a particular ideological leaning.
Why these scores (Factual 90 · Objective 85): Reports on IDF casualties in Lebanon with specific details about the fallen soldier. Neutral tone and factual reporting without evident bias.
The Times of IsraelIndependentRightFactual 90Objective 8518 days ago
The article discusses Israel's continued military presence in southern Lebanon despite a reported US-Iran agreement to end the conflict. It mentions Defense Minister Israel Katz's statement vowing to maintain the military position and retaliate against any Iranian attacks. The piece also covers the killing of Hezbollah commander Ali Mussa Daqduq by Israeli forces and the IDF's plan to establish a permanent post in the Jenin refugee camp in the West Bank.
Bias read (Right): The article emphasizes Israel's determination to maintain military control in Lebanon and the West Bank, presents Israeli military actions without critical examination, and highlights statements from Israeli officials without balancing them with opposing perspectives. This framing supports a pro-Isa
Why these scores (Factual 90 · Objective 85): Article covers Israel's stance on remaining in Lebanon post-US-Iran deal. Factuality is high as it accurately reflects official statements. Objectivity is high with balanced coverage of differing opinions.
The Jerusalem PostIndependentRightFactual 90Objective 755 days ago
Hezbollah supporters in Beirut rioted in response to a trilateral agreement signed between the US, Israel, and Lebanon on June 27, 2026. The agreement aims to secure an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory and the disarmament of Hezbollah, an Iran-backed group. Hezbollah leader Naim Qassem condemned the deal as a 'humiliating concession' that undermines Lebanese sovereignty, vowing that the group would not comply with the agreement and would continue attacks. Protests included burning tires, blocking roads, and setting fire to posters that had previously expressed gratitude toward Iran. While some regional powers like Jordan and the UAE supported the agreement, Hezbollah rejected it outright, calling it 'null.' Lebanese lawmakers, including Hezbollah member Hassan Fadlallah, warned that enforcing the agreement would require a civil war. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Israeli forces could remain in southern Lebanon if Hezbollah does not disarm.
Bias read (Right): The article frames Hezbollah's actions as destabilizing and emphasizes the group's rejection of the agreement, while highlighting support from regional allies such as Jordan and the UAE. It quotes Israeli officials and analysts who warn of potential instability caused by Hezbollah's defiance, aligns
Why these scores (Factual 90 · Objective 75): The article accurately reports on Hezbollah's reaction to the agreement, including specific protests and quotes from Naim Qassem. It maintains factual consistency with reported events. Objectivity is slightly lower due to emphasis on Hezbollah's negative reaction and framing the agreement as a 'humi
The Jerusalem PostIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 7511 days ago
Israeli and Lebanese delegations are set to meet in Washington for talks focused on the disarmament of Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and potential normalization of relations between the two countries. The discussions will occur over three days along two tracks: political/diplomatic led by Israel's Ambassador Yechiel Leiter, and military matters led by Brig.-Gen. Amichai Levin. A proposed pilot program involves the Lebanese Armed Forces deploying to specific areas in southern Lebanon to dismantle Hezbollah's infrastructure. Disagreements exist over where the pilot should start—Lebanon prefers areas under Israeli control, while Israel insists on starting in regions where they are not currently stationed. The U.S. has established a monitoring mechanism through CENTCOM to track developments in Lebanon. These talks follow recent U.S.-Iran agreements to create a 'deconfliction cell' aimed at preventing further military escalation in Lebanon.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both Israeli and Lebanese positions neutrally, without overtly favoring one side. It provides balanced descriptions of the differing perspectives on the pilot program and mentions the U.S. role in facilitating dialogue. There is no evident loaded language or one-sided sourcing.
Why these scores (Factual 90 · Objective 75): The article accurately describes the planned Israeli-Lebanese talks in Washington regarding Hezbollah disarmament. It maintains a relatively neutral tone, though it focuses on Israeli perspectives without providing counterpoints from Lebanon.
HaaretzIndependent🔒CenterFactual 90Objective 7511 days ago
Israeli authorities have lifted all military restrictions in the northern region, signaling a potential shift in strategy regarding the conflict with Hezbollah in Lebanon. The move comes amid ongoing discussions about a possible limited withdrawal from Lebanese territory, which could mark a significant development in Israel's approach to the ongoing tensions along its northern border.
Bias read (Center): The article presents factual updates on military decisions without overtly favoring any side. It reports on actions taken by Israeli authorities without explicit commentary or biased language, maintaining a neutral tone.
Why these scores (Factual 90 · Objective 75): Provides detailed information on the framework agreement and its implications, aligning with cross-source consensus. Maintains a balanced tone despite analytical framing.
The Jerusalem PostIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 7520 days ago
According to Axios, citing a source with direct knowledge of the call, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was surprised by the pending U.S.-Iran agreement during a conversation with former President Donald Trump. Netanyahu is not directly involved in the U.S.-Iran negotiations.
Bias read (Center): The article reports on a statement made by a source regarding a phone call between Trump and Netanyahu, without taking a stance or using biased language. It presents the information neutrally, focusing on the fact that Netanyahu was caught off guard by the pending agreement.
Why these scores (Factual 90 · Objective 75): Article provides detailed quotes and context from a reliable source, supporting cross-source consensus. Objectivity is slightly lower due to positive framing of Trump's stance.
The Jerusalem PostIndependentRightFactual 90Objective 6519 days ago
Israeli Minister Itamar Ben Gvir called for intensified attacks on Hezbollah in the Dahiyeh area, stating that the goal is to ensure security for residents in northern Israel.
Bias read (Right): The article presents a statement from an Israeli minister advocating for aggressive military action against Hezbollah, using strong language such as 'demolish buildings' and emphasizing forceful implementation. This framing aligns with a right-leaning perspective by promoting a hardline approach to敵
Why these scores (Factual 90 · Objective 65): The article presents factual information about Israeli ministers calling for intensified attacks on Hezbollah. It includes quotes and specific statements from officials. However, the language is emotionally charged, emphasizing the severity of the situation and the resolve of Israeli leaders, which
The Times of IsraelIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 6524 days ago
The article discusses Avichay Adraee, an Israeli military officer who serves as the Arabic-language spokesperson for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF). He has gained significant attention in Gaza and Lebanon through his social media posts, which provide updates on military operations and evacuation warnings. His approach includes using satire and pop culture references in Arabic, making him both feared and recognized among Arab populations. Adraee is set to retire this year and claims his role has helped improve understanding of Israeli military actions.
Bias read (Center): The article presents information objectively without overtly favoring any side. It describes Adraee's role, impact, and perspective neutrally, avoiding loaded language or biased framing. The content focuses on facts about his communication strategy and its effects, without taking a stance on the war
Why these scores (Factual 90 · Objective 65): The article presents facts about Avichay Adraee but frames the information in a way that highlights his role in Israeli military operations, which may be perceived as biased.
HaaretzIndependent🔒CenterFactual 88Objective 7513 days ago
The article discusses Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu being urged to rein in his allies who have been criticizing U.S. President Donald Trump. The focus is on internal dynamics within Israel regarding foreign policy and relations with the United States.
Bias read (Center): The article appears to present a balanced view by highlighting calls for restraint rather than taking a clear stance on Netanyahu or Trump. It does not exhibit strong ideological language or one-sided sourcing.
Why these scores (Factual 88 · Objective 75): Reports on IDF operations in Lebanon with some criticism of the situation. Objectivity is moderate as it highlights uncertainty but lacks balance by not presenting opposing viewpoints or contextual information.
i24NEWSIndependentRightFactual 85Objective 8510 days ago
Israeli Foreign Minister Israel Katz stated that Hezbollah and Iran are violating Lebanon's sovereignty by operating within Lebanese territory. He emphasized that these groups are undermining regional stability and called for international support to address the threat they pose.
Bias read (Right): The article frames Hezbollah and Iran as aggressors violating Lebanon's sovereignty, aligning with Israeli government positions that often portray these groups as threats to national security. The language used emphasizes their illegitimacy and calls for international backing, which reflects a right
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 85): The article reports on political statements regarding Hezbollah and Iran, providing context about ongoing discussions. It maintains objectivity by presenting both sides' positions without overt bias, though it highlights Israeli concerns about sovereignty violations.
The Jerusalem PostIndependentRightFactual 85Objective 803 days ago
A new security framework agreement between Israel and Lebanon has been criticized for potentially prolonging the conflict rather than ending it. The deal ties Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon to Hezbollah's disarmament, a condition widely seen as unachievable since Hezbollah has refused to disarm and no Lebanese government has the authority to enforce such measures. Analysts argue this creates a situation where Israel can maintain an indefinite military presence in southern Lebanon, while Lebanon faces increased pressure without clear guarantees of Israeli withdrawal. The agreement is viewed as favoring Israel's strategic interests, leaving Lebanon in a precarious position between unmet obligations and limited sovereignty.
Bias read (Right): The article frames the agreement as favoring Israel's strategic interests and highlights the structural imbalance in the deal, which places disproportionate burdens on Lebanon. It emphasizes the lack of reciprocal guarantees for Israeli withdrawal and criticizes the unrealistic expectations placedon
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 80): The article analyzes the Israel-Lebanon deal critically, noting its challenges. While it presents expert opinions, the tone leans slightly toward skepticism about the deal's effectiveness.
The Jerusalem PostIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 805 days ago
Israel and Lebanon have signed a 14-point Trilateral Framework Agreement, marking a significant development in their bilateral relations. While not a formal peace treaty, the agreement includes mutual recognition of each country's right to exist in peace and security, which is historically notable given Lebanon's previous legal restrictions on such interactions. The agreement outlines a phased Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon, contingent upon the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) demonstrating their capacity to disarm specific areas. This approach allows Israel to maintain control until it deems the regions secure, reducing risks in an environment marked by low mutual trust. Additionally, the agreement aims to weaken Hezbollah and Iran's influence by decoupling Lebanon's internal dynamics from regional conflicts involving Israel and the U.S. Both nations agree on a shared strategic goal of establishing Lebanon's exclusive authority over southern Lebanon and eventually defining a recognized sovereign border.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the agreement as a neutral development, emphasizing its historical significance and practical implications without overtly favoring either side. It highlights the mutual recognition of sovereignty, phased withdrawal terms, and shared strategic goals without using biased language
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 80): Reports an incident involving an IDF officer killed in a clash with Hezbollah, which aligns with cross-source accounts of ongoing clashes. Objectivity is slightly affected by the brevity and focus on a specific event.
The Jerusalem PostIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 8014 days ago
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ordered the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) to retaliate against Hezbollah with 'full force' following the killing of four IDF soldiers. Netanyahu emphasized that Israel would 'exact a very heavy price' from Hezbollah for the attacks and stated that IDF troops would remain in the security zone in Lebanon as long as necessary to protect northern settlements. Avigdor Liberman, leader of the Yisrael Beiteinu party, urged Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz to target Hezbollah's stronghold in Dahiyeh, criticizing their handling of the situation. Defense Minisr
Bias read (Center): The article reports on official statements from Israeli political leaders regarding military actions and does not exhibit overt bias in framing or sourcing.
Why these scores (Factual 85 · Objective 80): The article details the meeting between IDF and US officials and its impact on Lebanon negotiations. It provides context and quotes from officials without overt bias. The reporting remains factual and balanced, though there is some focus on military coordination.
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
IL
