US President Donald Trump believes Israel will withdraw from southern Lebanon. Defense Minister Israel Katz says Israel is staying.
Those two positions cannot simply coexist.
Speaking at the NATO summit in Ankara on Wednesday, Trump said he believed Israel would withdraw its forces from southern Lebanon, citing ongoing discussions and a mutual desire to move forward. A day later, Katz rejected that suggestion in unusually blunt terms.
“We did not ask anyone’s permission to enter Lebanon, and we do not need permission to stay in Lebanon,” he said, adding that Israeli forces would remain until Hezbollah is disarmed.
The disagreement is not a minor matter of messaging. It concerns the future of Israel’s northern border, the fate of Hezbollah, the sovereignty of Lebanon, and the credibility of the US-Israel alliance.
Hezbollah entrenched itself despite international arrangements in the past
Israel has every reason to be skeptical of promises concerning Lebanon. For years, international arrangements were supposed to prevent Hezbollah from entrenching itself along the border. Instead, the terrorist organization built an arsenal, dug in across southern Lebanon, and turned Lebanese territory into a forward base for Iran.
Israel cannot return to the conditions that existed before the war. No Israeli government can responsibly ask residents of the North to return home on the basis of another promise that Hezbollah will eventually be disarmed.
On that point, Katz is right. Withdrawal cannot be a gesture of faith. It must follow verifiable changes on the ground.
But Katz’s formulation is also needlessly confrontational. The United States is not just “anyone.” It is Israel’s most important ally, the mediator of the recent Israel-Lebanon security arrangement, and the country whose diplomatic and military support has been indispensable throughout the regional conflict.
Strategic independence does not require publicly dismissing Washington.
Trump, for his part, should not announce an Israeli withdrawal before Israel has agreed to one. The US may be eager to advance a broader regional settlement, and that goal deserves serious consideration. But Israel, not Washington, will live with the consequences if Hezbollah reestablishes itself along the border.
The problem is not simply that Trump and Katz disagree. Allies disagree all the time. The problem is that the public is being presented with two incompatible policies.
Is Israel's presence in southern Lebanon temporary?
Is Israel’s presence in southern Lebanon temporary? If so, what are the conditions for withdrawal? What does “disarming Hezbollah” mean in practice? Who will verify it? What role will the Lebanese Armed Forces play? What happens if the Lebanese state proves unwilling or unable to enforce the agreement?
These questions need answers.
The US-Israel relationship has always been strongest when disagreements are handled seriously rather than theatrically. Strategic ambiguity can be useful when directed at enemies. Among allies, it can create confusion that enemies exploit.
Hezbollah should not be left wondering whether Washington is pressuring Israel to leave or whether Israel intends to stay indefinitely. The Lebanese government should not be allowed to play one ally against the other. Israelis living near the northern border deserve to know what security arrangement is supposed to protect them.
There is also a larger opportunity.
Lebanon has a chance - perhaps its best in decades - to restore genuine sovereignty over its own territory. A weakened Hezbollah and a changing regional order have created possibilities that once seemed remote. Israel should not remain in Lebanon one day longer than its security requires. But it should not leave one day before a credible alternative is in place.
That alternative cannot be another document filled with promises. It must include enforceable benchmarks: the removal of Hezbollah’s military infrastructure from the border region, the deployment of effective Lebanese state forces, mechanisms for verification, and clear consequences for violations.
Washington and Jerusalem should be working together to define those conditions now.
Trump’s instinct to seek a diplomatic breakthrough is understandable. Katz’s insistence that Israel will not outsource its security is equally understandable. But diplomacy and security are not opposing goals. A durable agreement requires both.
The US should not promise an Israeli withdrawal that Jerusalem has not approved. Israeli ministers should not speak about America as though its position were irrelevant.
Before either side makes another public declaration, the two governments need to agree on the answer to a simple question: What must happen for Israel to leave Lebanon?
Until they can answer it together, both would be wiser to speak less.