Israeli security officials have criticized Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu over remarks concerning military operations in southern Lebanon, warning that the statements could endanger troops. The officials argued that publicly discussing sensitive military activities offers no operational benefit. The controversy has intensified debate over the government’s handling of security matters during a politically charged period.
According to Israel’s public broadcaster KAN, unnamed security officials expressed anger over Netanyahu’s comments regarding alleged military activity north of the Litani River. They said revealing details about operations could expose deployed forces to additional risks and potentially compromise field security. The criticism reflects growing concern within sections of Israel’s security establishment.
Read more: Netanyahu proposes pipelines amid Iran conflict escalation
The dispute emerged after Netanyahu stated on Thursday and Friday that Israeli forces had crossed the Litani River and reached what he described as “positions of control” in southern Lebanon. However, the Israeli military has not officially confirmed any operation beyond the river. The absence of formal military confirmation has fueled questions about the purpose and timing of the remarks.
Political opponents have accused Netanyahu of using security-related issues to strengthen his position ahead of future electoral challenges. Critics argue that public statements on sensitive military matters should be carefully managed, particularly during ongoing regional tensions. The prime minister has not publicly responded to the criticism reported by Israeli media.
Read more: Israel to keep full control over Gaza: Netanyahu
The controversy comes as violence continues despite a ceasefire agreement between Israel and Lebanon that took effect in April and was later extended. Cross-border tensions remain high, and military developments along the Lebanese frontier continue to attract close regional and international attention. Analysts say the episode highlights the delicate balance between political messaging and operational security during periods of conflict.