The war that Netanyahu—driven by pride—ignited on June 13 has, beyond its battlefield toll of casualties and destruction, plunged an already fragile regime into a deep political and social crisis. In a country where thousands of families are no longer seeking security but rather trying to escape the harsh and crumbling realities of daily life, framing the cancellation of an engagement as a “cost of war” is not just an insult to public intelligence—it’s a stark display of the regime’s detachment from the truth on the ground.

Netanyahu is trying to portray a war he launched to cling to power as a national and sacred mission. Yet this narrative, more than anything else, is backfiring—further damaging his precarious political standing and deepening the legitimacy crisis within the occupied territories.

An ego that has isolated the political leadership

Turning the cancellation of the Prime Minister’s son’s wedding into a public display isn’t an act of solidarity—it’s an act of political narcissism. This inflated ego, which seeks sympathy rather than accountability for failures, lays bare Netanyahu’s disconnect from the suffering and realities of society.

More than any speech, this move has spotlighted the deep divides between him and the people living under his rule, pushing public distrust to new heights.

A fracture that poses a serious threat to the regime

The public backlash to Netanyahu’s remarks isn’t merely about one statement—it’s a manifestation of a broader political breakdown and an accumulation of long-simmering outrage. At the core of this fracture is Netanyahu’s boundless arrogance, which sees societal interests not as priorities, but as tools for preserving his own grip on power.

The war that began as a means to consolidate authority has now become the gravest threat to the political and social stability of the regime—a threat fueled from within by his self-interest and sense of superiority, accelerating its downward spiral.

Is the real cost of this war merely the cancellation of a family celebration—or is it the slow collapse of a premiership built on arrogance at the expense of public welfare?