As the United States pushes to solidify the ceasefire in Lebanon and lay the groundwork for broader understandings with the Lebanese state, Israel finds itself walking a tightrope between the expectations of its closest ally and mounting political and security pressures at home.
The understandings ending the U.S.-Iran confrontation have refocused attention on Lebanon as a key variable in U.S.-Israeli relations. The situation hinges on how long Israel’s military operations against Hezbollah can coexist with the broader diplomatic objectives of the Trump administration.
The issue has become increasingly pressing for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who faces competing pressures. While President Donald Trump seeks to uphold the ceasefire, a broad domestic consensus—spanning coalition partners, opposition leaders, senior security officials, and residents of northern Israeli communities—demands that Hezbollah not be permitted to rebuild its military capabilities.
Responding to a question from Alhurra following Reuters’ report that, according to a U.S. official, Israeli forces had withdrawn from parts of southern Lebanon as a goodwill gesture, Israeli military sources said the army’s orders in southern Lebanon “have not changed” and that Israeli troops remain deployed in their positions.
Israeli sources also told Alhurra that this approach was reflected in Tuesday’s operation in the Ali al-Taher area of southern Lebanon. According to Israel, its forces targeted Hezbollah operatives attempting to operate inside what Israel considers part of its “security zone.”
Public Unity, Private Differences
Over the past several days, Netanyahu and Defense Minister Israel Katz have repeatedly insisted that the Israeli military continues to enjoy “complete freedom of action” in Lebanon. Behind the coordinated messaging, however, subtle differences in tone—and perhaps strategy—have emerged.
Netanyahu has focused on the army’s authority to “remove threats” and protect residents of northern Israel, emphasizing that his directives to the military remain unchanged and that Israeli forces retain the freedom to act against any immediate or emerging threat.
Katz, however, has gone considerably further. Speaking at a conference of local authorities on Wednesday, he declared that Israel would not withdraw from southern Lebanon even if Washington demanded it.
“Even if there is an American demand, we will not withdraw from southern Lebanon,” Katz said. “We are not leaving.”
His remarks reflect a more hardline position within the Israeli government. Rather than focusing solely on preventing security threats, Katz openly advocated maintaining an Israeli military presence in southern Lebanon and preventing residents from returning to certain border areas. The comments have raised questions about whether Israel is moving toward a prolonged military deployment that extends beyond its publicly stated security objectives.
The Israeli government argues that such a policy is necessary to prevent Hezbollah from rebuilding its capabilities and to avoid a repeat of the attacks Israel has experienced in recent years.
Soldiers Report Growing Restrictions
While government officials speak of “complete freedom of action,” Israeli media have painted a more complicated picture.
According to Israel’s Channel 12, soldiers serving in southern Lebanon have expressed growing frustration over tighter rules of engagement and increasing restrictions on battlefield operations. The report cited soldiers and field commanders as saying that decisions once made by local commanders now require approval from higher levels of command, reflecting a clear effort to avoid incidents that could trigger political or diplomatic crises.
Those accounts reinforce criticism from former Prime Minister Naftali Bennett, one of Netanyahu’s leading political rivals, who has become one of the government’s sharpest critics over its Lebanon policy.
Bennett accused Netanyahu and Katz of misleading the Israeli public when they claim the military enjoys “complete freedom of action” in Lebanon.
“The truth is that our sons’ hands in Lebanon are tied,” Bennett said.
He said conversations with soldiers and commanders serving in southern Lebanon—or recently returned from there—suggest that conditions on the ground differ significantly from the government’s public narrative.
According to Bennett, Israeli troops have witnessed attempts to restore Hezbollah infrastructure while facing growing constraints on their ability to act proactively. He also criticized what he described as an increasingly cumbersome decision-making process, arguing that decisions once handled by field commanders now require approval from senior military officials, giving Israel’s adversaries valuable time to regroup.
He concluded by accusing the government of limiting the military’s operational flexibility while security threats remain.
“We cannot send our sons to confront Hezbollah with their hands tied,” Bennett said, calling on the government to “immediately remove the restrictions on our soldiers.”
Internal Coalition Pressures
The pressure is not coming from the opposition alone.
Within Netanyahu’s own governing coalition, National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir has demanded an even tougher approach.
In a strongly worded speech during a parliamentary faction meeting in the Knesset, Ben Gvir rejected any return to what he described as a “weak ceasefire,” arguing that Israel has reached “the closest point to victory” and should seize what he called a “historic opportunity” to secure the country’s future.
“Anyone who threatens Israeli citizens must understand that the price will be unbearable,” Ben Gvir said. “Beirut must understand that it cannot continue normal life while allowing Lebanese territory to serve as a terrorist base against Israel.”
Although he praised President Trump, Ben Gvir stressed that responsibility for Israel’s security “rests solely with the Israeli government.”
The statements underscore the political pressures confronting Netanyahu from within his own camp, as well as from residents of northern Israel who fear that any long-term truce could give Hezbollah an opportunity to rebuild its military strength.
The prime minister therefore faces a delicate balancing act: satisfying Washington without alienating domestic constituencies—or responding to domestic demands without risking a confrontation with Israel’s closest ally.
Washington Seeks to Preserve the Ceasefire
Meanwhile, Washington is advancing proposals aimed at preventing another large-scale conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.
In recent days, signs have emerged of a U.S. effort to establish monitoring and oversight mechanisms for the ceasefire as part of the understandings that followed the U.S.-Iran talks.
President Trump’s recent remark that he “solves problems quickly, including with Bibi,” has also prompted debate in Israel over how much room Netanyahu has to maneuver.
Still, many in Israel argue that U.S. pressure does not negate Israel’s right to continue military operations.
In an interview with Alhurra, former Israeli ambassador to the United States Danny Ayalon said the issue is less about competing interpretations of the ceasefire understandings than about developments on the ground.
Ayalon said Israel believes it has every right to respond if Hezbollah continues violating the ceasefire or rebuilding its military capabilities. What is unfolding diplomatically, he said, reflects what international relations scholars describe as “constructive ambiguity,” allowing each side to interpret the understandings differently while keeping the broader agreement intact.
“The important thing is not the differing interpretations,” Ayalon said, “but what happens on the ground.”
He added that Israel “will respond to any threat posed by Hezbollah.”
A Limited Campaign, Not a New War
That approach appears to extend beyond political rhetoric and into military operations.
On Tuesday, the Israeli military announced it had killed several armed individuals in the Ali al-Taher area of southern Lebanon.
Israeli military sources told Alhurra that troops had identified four Hezbollah operatives traveling on a bulldozer and a motorcycle inside what Israel considers its security zone near Ali al-Taher Hill as they attempted to reach underground Hezbollah infrastructure, an act the military described as a violation of the ceasefire.
The sources said Israeli forces maintain control of the area and will not allow Hezbollah members to access or emerge from the underground facilities. They added that the operatives were moving “under civilian cover” to conceal their activities.
The incident reflects the strategy Israel has pursued since the ceasefire took effect. While officials say they are not seeking to resume a full-scale war, they insist the military will continue carrying out targeted operations whenever it determines Hezbollah is attempting to approach Israeli positions or restore its military infrastructure—actions Israel argues fall within its right to self-defense rather than constituting a breach of the ceasefire.
Netanyahu’s Narrow Path
Caught between Washington’s efforts to preserve stability and domestic demands to keep up pressure on Hezbollah, Netanyahu faces the difficult task of convincing the United States that Israel remains committed to the ceasefire while assuring coalition partners, opposition figures, and residents of northern Israel that the truce will not allow Hezbollah to regain its strength.
Within that narrow margin for maneuver, the Israeli military continues operating in southern Lebanon under operational flexibility that the government is trying to preserve. But that room could expand or contract depending on developments on the ground.
Ultimately, it reflects Netanyahu’s central dilemma: Washington appears unwilling to grant Israel unrestricted military freedom, while many inside Israel remain unwilling to accept what they see as a return to the policy of containment that preceded the war.
Adapted and translated from the original Arabic.
