Israeli Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich called on Monday to resume strikes on Beirut in response to Hizbullah’s explosive drone attacks. Its brutal and numerical formula sets a threshold for retaliation: ten buildings to be destroyed in Beirut for each explosive drone launched by the Lebanese Shiite movement. The declaration comes after the death of an Israeli soldier in southern Lebanon and in a context of truce already weakened by strikes, drone attacks and negotiations without immediate effect on the ground.
The exit of Bezalel Smotrich is not, at this stage, an official decision of the Israeli government. But it weighs on the political and military climate. It places the Lebanese capital, and more specifically its southern suburbs, at the centre of a new deterrent equation claimed by the Israeli far right. It also reflects the growing concern of some of Israel’s political apparatus about Hezbollah drones, which have become one of the most difficult tools to neutralize in the current confrontation.
A public threat against Beirut
Bezalel Smotrich presented Hezbollah’s explosive drones as a threat that cannot be treated by defence alone. According to the wording reported by the Israeli press and a news agency, he estimated that for each explosive drone, ten buildings should fall in Beirut. The minister, a member of the security cabinet and figure of the Israeli far right, also defended the idea of changing the rules of response. It is therefore not just a one-off reaction to an attack. It proposes a principle of systematic reprisal against buildings in the Lebanese capital.
This declaration is aimed primarily at Hezbollah. It seeks to establish a cost logic imposed on the Lebanese Shiite movement in response to the use of explosive drones against Israeli soldiers and northern Israeli communities. But its political effect goes beyond the military. In referring to Beirut, Smotrich does not speak of a front position, an identified weapons depot or a spotted launcher. It evokes a city, densely populated, already marked by several strikes since the beginning of the war. This generalization transforms the threat into a message addressed to the whole of Lebanon.
The formulation comes at a time when Israel is still trying to define an effective response to the subjective drones and explosive drones used by Hezbollah. These aircraft, often inexpensive, are more difficult to intercept than conventional projectiles when flying low, slowly manoeuvring, or using guidance that escapes interference. Israeli officials are therefore talking about an operational challenge. Smotrich drew a political conclusion: hit harder, further, and make Beirut accountable for every attack launched from Lebanon.
Netanyahu refuses automatic logic
The Minister of Finance’s statement caused a visible disagreement with Benjamin Netanyahu. According to Israeli media, the Prime Minister did not accept the proposal for automatic destruction of buildings in Beirut after each drone. He would have questioned the very logic of this rule, pointing out that it could lead to applying the same reasoning to other fronts or threats. This does not mean a definitive rejection of any strike on Beirut. However, it shows that the Israeli government has not yet formalized the doctrine proposed by Smotrich.
The debate is about two visions. The first focuses on defence, technological adaptation, intelligence and targeted strikes against Hezbollah capabilities. The second seeks to impose a visible and disproportionate punishment, which is supposed to alter the calculation of the Lebanese movement. Smotrich is clearly in this second line. He claims that Israel cannot be protected with nets, automatic machine guns or defensive devices spread throughout the territory. For him, the protection of soldiers is also a deterrent to the enemy.
This internal divergence is not anomaly. It intervenes in an Israeli coalition that has already been crossed by the pressures of its most radical ministers. Itamar Ben Gvir, Minister of National Security, also called not to trivialize the attacks of explosive drones. He called for a return to a more intense war in Lebanon and referred to much broader measures against the country. Although these positions do not immediately become the official line, they move the Israeli public debate towards an assumed escalation.
Hezbollah drones change power ratio
Smotrich’s threat is explained by the tactical evolution of Hezbollah. For several weeks, the movement has been using explosive drones and FPV drones against Israeli soldiers, vehicles and advanced positions. These devices allow targeting specific targets at low cost. Some models are remotely guided by fibre optics, which reduces the efficiency of interference systems. For Israel, this has created constant pressure on units deployed in southern Lebanon and on communities close to the border.
The death of 19-year-old Sergeant Nehoray Leizer, announced on Monday by the Israeli army, revived this concern. The soldier belonged to the 601st Combat Engineer Battalion. Another member was seriously injured in the same incident. Israeli media reported, on the basis of initial assessments, that the attack was allegedly carried out by a Hezbollah explosive drone. This loss occurred after several similar incidents involving Israeli soldiers or civilians in the north.
The problem with these drones is not only technical. He is also psychological and political. A low-cost weapon, produced or assembled in limited numbers, can immobilize a unit, disrupt evacuations, hit a engineer vehicle or damage a position. It imposes a costly protection effort on Israel, involving sensors, jammers and specialized teams. It enables Hezbollah to demonstrate that it retains offensive capability despite repeated strikes, loss of life and international pressure on its disarmament.
A budget of 2 billion shekels
Bezalel Smotrich also highlighted the approval of a budget of 2 billion shekels, or about 693 million dollars, to finance technological solutions against the threat of drones. This announcement shows that the debate is not limited to rhetoric. Israel is seeking industrial and military responses to a threat that has been imposed on several fronts, from Lebanon to Gaza, to regional attacks linked to Iran and its allies.
The number is important. He indicates that Hezbollah drones are no longer seen as a single problem on the northern front. They are integrated into a broader reflection on Israeli defence. Anti-missile systems, designed to intercept rockets and missiles, do not always respond optimally to small, slow drones, flying low and sometimes guided in a way that is difficult to disrupt. Investment therefore aims to fill a loophole revealed by the conflict.
But Smotrich uses this envelope to defend a more political idea: technology is not enough. In its logic, Israel cannot simply protect its soldiers from each aircraft. He says we have to change the equation. This means that every attack must involve a high cost to Hezbollah and to the territorial environment in which the movement operates. It is precisely this shift that creates the highest risk for Lebanon. A logic of reprisals on the capital would remove confrontation from its immediate military perimeter.
Beirut, symbol and red line
Beirut occupies a central place in this sequence. Since the beginning of the war, Israel has repeatedly struck the southern suburbs, claiming to target commanders, infrastructure or production capabilities of Hezbollah drones. The Lebanese authorities denounced these strikes as violations of sovereignty and the ceasefire. Hezbollah, for its part, challenged some Israeli accusations about the presence of military installations at the sites concerned.
The explicit return of Beirut in the speech of an Israeli minister rekindles a major concern. The Lebanese capital is not only a political and media centre. It is also a dense urban space, where a strike against a building can cause damage to nearby homes, shops, roads and essential services. The threat of destroying ten buildings by drone does not distinguish in its formulation the nature of the buildings or the possible presence of civilians. It turns a city into a deterrent.
For Lebanon, this threat can also affect the domestic front. It feeds Hezbollah’s argument that Israel not only targets its military capabilities, but exerts pressure on the entire country. It complicates the position of the Lebanese government, which seeks to defend the authority of the state, to demand a halt to the strikes and to respond to international pressure on Hezbollah’s weapons. The more Israel threatens Beirut, the more difficult it becomes for the Lebanese executive to dissociate the restoration of the state from pressure perceived as imposed from outside.
A truce weakened by the facts
The Smotrich declaration comes as the truce between Israel and Lebanon remains officially in force, but largely contradicted by the facts. The ceasefire announced in April and extended under American mediation was to reduce hostilities and open a space for discussion. On the ground, Israeli strikes continue in the south and east of Lebanon. Hezbollah claims attacks on Israeli soldiers and positions. Each camp accuses the other of emptying the truce of its contents.
This situation creates a hybrid regime. There is no formal declaration of return to a total war, but there is also no effective cessation of operations. Villages in southern Lebanon remain exposed to evacuation orders, drone strikes, artillery fire and ground operations. The northern communities of Israel remain under threat of rockets, missiles or drones. Civilians on both sides therefore suffer the effects of a conflict whose rules are no longer clear.
In this context, Smotrich’s words can act as a climbing factor. If they remain at the declarative level, they report extreme right pressure on Netanyahu. If they become an operational doctrine, they can open a new phase of strikes against Beirut. The difference is great. One thing is to hit a site presented as a military after warning. Another is to announce a ratio of destruction of buildings for each drone launched. This logic brings together the response to collective punishment, a concept that is particularly sensitive under international humanitarian law.
The Lebanese authorities face a narrow equation
The Lebanese Government is in a delicate position. He called for a halt to the strikes, Israeli withdrawal from the occupied areas in the South and the consolidation of the ceasefire. It must also respond to American and international demands on strengthening State authority and arms control. Smotrich’s threat complicates this equation. It offers Hezbollah an additional argument to refuse any immediate debate on its disarmament, stating that the country remains under direct threat.
The issue is not just military. It affects sovereignty, institutions and reconstruction. Villages in the South need practical roads, operational relief, open schools, repaired homes and guarantees of return for displaced persons. These priorities become difficult to defend when Israeli officials talk about further destruction, including in Beirut. The Israeli dissuasive discourse then feeds a reverse logic: it reinforces the idea that only the armed capacity of Hezbollah can prevent even stronger pressure.
For Beirut, the challenge is to avoid two traps. The first would appear powerless in the face of Israeli threats. The second would be to let Hezbollah monopolize the national response on behalf of the country’s defence. This line is narrow. It requires active diplomacy, but also concrete guarantees from Washington and the mediators. Without verifiable cessation of strikes, the Lebanese State will find it difficult to convince that a security process can replace the logic of confrontation.
The Lebanese issue in regional negotiations
Smotrich’s exit also comes at a time when discussions between Washington and Tehran are advancing around a possible regional arrangement. Lebanon follows this process carefully, as any agreement on Iran can have effects on the southern front. Tehran hopes that its regional allies and active fronts will be taken into account. Israel, on the contrary, wants to preserve its freedom of action against Hezbollah, even if a broader compromise emerges. This divergence places Beirut in an area of uncertainty.
The United States seeks to maintain a truce, support the Lebanese government and limit the risk of explosion. But their messages remain ambiguous. On one side, Washington defends the diplomatic path. On the other hand, American officials recognize Israel’s right to defend itself against Hezbollah attacks. This dual position allows immediate ruptures to be contained, but it does not resolve the essential question: which sets the limits of the response and which guarantees protect Lebanese civilians.
The threat against Beirut is therefore testing the strength of American mediation. If the Israeli extreme right imposes its logic of retaliation, the truce will still lose credibility. If Netanyahu excludes this option but maintains targeted strikes in the South and the Bekaa, the conflict will remain in its current grey zone. In both cases, Lebanon will remain exposed as long as no clear mechanism defines violations, investigations, withdrawals and operational limitations.
A dissuasable doctrine of deterrence
Smotrich’s proposal is based on a simple idea: making each drone too expensive for Hezbollah. But this idea raises several problems. First, it does not guarantee the cessation of attacks. Hezbollah can seek to demonstrate that it is not deterred, especially if its officials believe that Israeli pressure is already targeting its entire environment. Secondly, a strike against buildings in Beirut can cause civilian casualties, broaden the conflict and strengthen the legitimacy of the movement’s response to its base.
International humanitarian law imposes principles of distinction, proportionality and military necessity. A threat formulated in terms of the automatic ratio between drones and destroyed buildings may be read as incompatible with these principles if it does not distinguish military targets from civilian objects. Although Israel claims to be targeting Hezbollah, the manner in which the threat is formulated exposes the Israeli government to new international criticism. It can also increase tensions with partners that support Israel’s security while calling for averting escalation in Lebanon.
Militaryly, such doctrine can also have a reverse effect. It would push Hezbollah to further disperse its resources, to increase fire from areas difficult to attribute and to portray any strike on Beirut as an attack against the Lebanese population. It would reduce the space for negotiations by strengthening the most radical actors on both sides. It would also weaken the position of those in Washington, Beirut or even Israel seeking an exit through a negotiated security framework.
A threat that changes the debate
Bezalel Smotrich’s statement therefore marks a political moment. It alone does not create a new war in Beirut. But it shifts the terms of the Israeli debate. Hezbollah drones are no longer just a tactical problem handled by the army and defence industry. They become the pretext for a discussion about massive reprisals against the Lebanese capital. This evolution gives a regional scope to a field weapon.
For Hezbollah, this statement confirms the strategic weight of its drones. The movement can see evidence that its attacks disrupt the Israeli army and divide the cabinet. For Israel, it reveals strong internal political pressure after the death of a soldier and the difficulty of intercepting all devices. For Lebanon, it adds a direct threat to an already vulnerable capital and reinforces the urgency of a real diplomatic framework, which does not simply prolong a truce without imposing its rules.
On Monday, no official decision confirmed the adoption of the line defended by Smotrich. But the statements of the Minister of Finance, the appeals of Itamar Ben Gvir and the discussions in the Israeli cabinet show that Beirut remains at the centre of the escalation scenarios. The next inflection will depend as much on Hezbollah drone attacks as on the ability of Netanyahu, Washington and mediators to prevent a formula for political assembly from becoming a doctrine of bombing.
