Exit cannot be an act of trust: US and Israel must align on Lebanon - editorial

Israel did not seek anyone’s approval to enter Lebanon and does not require it to remain there, Israel Katz stated, noting that forces would stay until Hezbollah is disarmed.

US President Donald Trump gestures as he steps off Air Force One to board the new Qatari-gifted Boeing plane, enroute to the United States following his participation in the NATO Summit at Royal Air Force Mildenhall on July 08, 2026 in Mildenhall, England.

(photo credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

ByJPOST EDITORIAL

JULY 10, 2026 06:00

President Donald Trump thinks Israel plans to pull out of southern Lebanon. Defense Minister Israel Katz states Israel intends to remain.

These stances cannot merely exist side by side.

Speaking at the NATO summit in Ankara on Wednesday, Trump expressed his belief that Israel would remove its troops from southern Lebanon, pointing to continuing talks and a shared interest in progress. The next day, Katz dismissed that idea in direct language.

“We did not seek anyone’s approval to enter Lebanon, and we do not require approval to remain in Lebanon,” he said, noting that Israeli troops would stay until Hezbollah is disarmed.

The difference is not a small issue of communication. It involves the future of Israel’s northern border, the status of Hezbollah, Lebanon’s sovereignty, and the reliability of the US-Israel partnership.

Hezbollah has entrenched itself despite past international deals

Israel has solid grounds for doubting assurances about Lebanon. Over years, international deals were meant to stop Hezbollah from building up along the border. Instead, the militant group amassed weapons, established positions throughout southern Lebanon, and converted Lebanese land into an advance outpost for Iran.

Israel cannot go back to the pre-war situation. No Israeli government can responsibly request that residents of the North return to their homes based on yet another assurance that Hezbollah will be disarmed at some point.

On this matter, Katz is correct. Withdrawal cannot be an act of trust. It must come after confirmed alterations on the ground.

But Katz’s wording is also unnecessarily provocative. The United States is not merely “anyone.” It is Israel’s key partner, the facilitator of the recent Israel-Lebanon security deal, and the nation whose diplomatic and military backing has been crucial during the regional conflict.

Strategic autonomy does not necessitate openly rejecting Washington.

Trump, on his side, should not declare an Israeli withdrawal before Israel has consented to it. The US may wish to push a wider regional agreement, and that aim merits careful thought. But Israel, not Washington, will face the outcomes if Hezbollah regains its position along the border.

The issue is not just that Trump and Katz differ. Allies differ frequently. The issue is that the public sees two conflicting policies.

Is Israel’s stay in southern Lebanon short-term?

Is Israel’s presence in southern Lebanon short-term? If it is, what are the criteria for exit? What does “disarming Hezbollah” entail in reality? Who will confirm it? What part will the Lebanese Armed Forces take? What occurs if the Lebanese government turns out unwilling or unable to uphold the deal?

These questions require responses.

The US-Israel tie has always been firmest when differences are addressed seriously instead of dramatically. Strategic vagueness can help when aimed at foes. Among partners, it can generate uncertainty that adversaries use.

Hezbollah should not be left uncertain if Washington is urging Israel to depart or if Israel plans to remain without limit. The Lebanese government should not be permitted to pit one ally against the other. Israelis near the northern border deserve clarity on the security setup meant to safeguard them.

There is also a broader chance.

Lebanon has an opportunity - perhaps its strongest in decades - to reclaim real control over its land. A diminished Hezbollah and a shifting regional situation have opened doors that once appeared distant. Israel should not stay in Lebanon any longer than its safety demands. But it should not depart any sooner than when a reliable substitute is established.

That substitute cannot be another paper of pledges. It must feature enforceable standards: the elimination of Hezbollah’s military setup from the border area, the positioning of capable Lebanese state units, verification processes, and definite penalties for breaches.

Washington and Jerusalem should collaborate now to set those conditions.

Trump’s urge to pursue a diplomatic success is understandable. Katz’s demand that Israel not delegate its safety is equally understandable. But diplomacy and security are not conflicting aims. A lasting pact needs both.

The US should not pledge an Israeli withdrawal that Jerusalem has not accepted. Israeli officials should not discuss America as if its stance did not matter.

Before either side issues another public statement, the two governments must concur on the response to a basic question: What needs to occur for Israel to exit Lebanon?

Until they can respond together, both would be better off saying less.