“Israeli” Analysis: Netanyahu Has Set the North Ablaze Once More - What A Shameful Decline

By Staff

Dan Perry- a Zionist journalist, former chief editor of the Associated Press for Europe, Africa, and the Middle East, and former president of the Foreign Press Association in Al-Quds- asked in an article published today by the “Israeli” newspaper “Maariv”: “What the hell have we gained from ‘Israeli’ Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to strike Beirut’s southern suburb once again?”'

He added, “this question should now be at the center of public debate in ‘Israel’, especially since it has already become clear where this move has led: an Iranian ballistic missile attack on northern ‘Israel’, a tangible threat of broader regional escalation, and a US president who- according to reports leaked just days ago- cursed and berated Netanyahu specifically over his conduct on the Lebanese front, and who is now publicly signaling that he simply wants this episode to end. In Perry’s view, this outcome was entirely predictable.”

“If the strike on Beirut’s southern suburb had fundamentally altered the strategic reality, one might have argued that there was a cold and calculated logic behind it. If it had saved soldiers’ lives, thwarted an imminent attack, or dealt a crippling blow to Hezbollah’s capabilities, one could at least understand why 'Israel' chose to take the risk. But none of that is true,” he wrote.

“According to everything currently known, the strike- carried out at a sensitive moment during US-Iran negotiations, while Washington is making frantic efforts to calm tensions in Lebanon and separate the various fronts- changes nothing and contributes nothing. Hezbollah will not collapse because of another empty building in Beirut. The strike certainly does not prevent the casualties that continue to claim the lives of “Israeli” soldiers. On the contrary, any civilian deaths would merely provide justification for retaliation,” he continued.

Perry argued that “Israeli” conduct in Lebanon is jeopardizing some of the most important strategic assets “Israel” has managed to secure there in recent years. He noted that Lebanon today is led by President Joseph Aoun and Prime Minister Nawaf Salam, both of whom view Hezbollah as a destructive force and seek ways to restore genuine Lebanese sovereignty.

According to Perry, this constitutes a tremendous strategic asset for “Israel” and is precisely the kind of legitimacy upon which it should be building.

He maintained that any harm inflicted on Lebanese civilians, or any attack on infrastructure lacking a clear connection to Hezbollah- especially when accompanied by no acknowledgment of mistakes or expression of regret- only strengthens Hezbollah’s narrative. Instead of isolating the group politically within Lebanon, “Israel” may end up helping it present itself once again as the defender of the Lebanese state against “Israeli” aggression. “What is particularly frustrating,” he said, “is that decision-makers in Tel Aviv appear to ignore this dynamic entirely.”

Perry also asked, “What exactly is the plan?” He then answered: “Hezbollah remains present in the Bekaa Valley. Are we supposed to rely solely on ourselves? That would mean advancing 150 kilometers northward and occupying most of Lebanon. Even if the “Israeli” military were to continue operating for years, there would still ultimately be a need for a Lebanese state stronger than Hezbollah, along with international support, coordination with the United States and Europe, and a Lebanese majority that sees the organization as a burden rather than a protective shield.”

He continued: “Couldn’t anyone look two steps ahead and realize that this is not the right moment to set the north on fire again—and perhaps the entire region along with it—especially when the whole world would blame ‘Israel’? Because at this stage, despite Hezbollah’s importance, the central arena is not Lebanon but Iran. And there, ‘Israel’ finds itself in a delicate and dangerous position vis-à-vis Washington.”

Perry described the lack of responsibility as shocking. After what he called the adventure regarding Iran—conducted without a real solution to the Strait of Hormuz issue and without a clear exit strategy—“Israel” has already backed itself into a complicated political corner. Rather than the collapse of the regime in Tehran, the result is a situation in which, despite the “brilliant military successes” of the early days, the United States is searching for a way out of the crisis without humiliation.

“Trump is facing an angry public, rising energy prices, and looming midterm elections. He fully understands that a prolonged regional war could turn him into a lame-duck president within months. If Republicans lose control of Congress, investigations, impeachment efforts, and the collapse of his broader agenda could quickly follow,” he wrote.

As a result, Perry argued, “Israel” has maneuvered itself into a position where it is effectively required to absorb even Iranian attacks and exercise restraint, because without American support it cannot realistically sustain a large-scale war for long.

He stressed that talk of “independence” is an illusion. Without the American air bridge, munitions supplies, the US veto at the United Nations, and American diplomatic protection in Europe and international institutions, “Israel” could not wage a major war for more than a few weeks.

Ammunition would run out, political pressure would become overwhelming, and once sanctions came into play, any military advantage would prove unsustainable without US backing.

Perry also found it difficult to separate the political dimension from the broader story. Trump and Netanyahu, he argued, are currently moving in completely opposite directions. While Trump needs stability, Netanyahu needs something to change. Polls show him trailing badly, and without a major shock he appears headed toward defeat.

What is remarkable, Perry said, is that a large portion of the public does not dismiss the possibility that the government is deliberately escalating tensions for precisely that reason: creating another state of emergency, perhaps one that could justify postponing elections.

“What does it matter to them,” he asked, “if ‘Israelis’ end up spending more time in shelters, if schools close again, if flights are suspended once more, and if billions are wasted all over again? The public is foolish, and therefore the public will pay the price. Except, of course, for the ultra-Orthodox, who will get what they want.”

He concluded that the tragedy of “Israel” in 2026 is that millions of “Israelis” do not consider such a scenario far-fetched at all. The issue of “ulterior motives,” as it is politely called, has become entirely normalized. “I do not recall anyone saying such things about Golda Meir, Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Ariel Sharon, or even Ehud Olmert. Perhaps that is the most depressing aspect of the entire story. What a shameful decline.”