N24 hours after the simultaneous detonation of hundreds of beepers imported by the Lebanese group Hezbollah in an attack blamed on Israel, Israeli political commentators and analysts were grappling with questions about the timing and what the potential implications would be for the conflict on the Lebanese border.

The explosions came shortly after Israel’s security cabinet approved a decision to expand the goals of the war in Gaza to include the return of tens of thousands of Israelis evacuated from northern towns damaged by rockets fired by Hezbollah. The move could provide Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a casus belli if he decides to launch a ground invasion of Lebanon.

Israeli journalist and political commentator Avi Issacharoff wrote for the Ynet news website on Wednesday: “What is the purpose of such a war against Hezbollah? What are the achievable goals? Will it be possible to restore peace on the northern border and keep the Shiite organization’s activists away from the border?”

These are questions that the government “will have to ask itself, and quickly,” Issacharoff wrote. “This action attributed to Israel will not lead Hezbollah to stop its offensive activities against the northern settlements, but to escalate them,” he added.

Israel has a long history of conducting sophisticated remote operations in countries it considers enemies, ranging from cyberattacks to remotely controlled firearms aimed at individuals in drive-by shootings. The country rarely comments on or accepts responsibility for such operations. Tuesday’s explosions caught most political observers by surprise.

Since October, Hezbollah, an ally of Hamas in Gaza, has exchanged fire with Israeli forces on the Lebanon-Israel border on an almost daily basis. The fighting on the Lebanese front, which has not been formally declared a war, has killed hundreds of people in Lebanon, mostly fighters, and dozens, including soldiers, on the Israeli side. It has also forced tens of thousands of people on both sides of the border to flee their homes.

Professor Eyal Zisser, vice-chancellor of Tel Aviv University and an expert on Lebanon and Arab-Israeli relations, said he wondered how Tuesday’s attack could contribute to the goal of allowing evacuated Israelis to return home.

“Since October 8 … both sides, each for its own reasons, have accepted limitations — at what depth and distance from the border they launch their attacks and at what targets,” Zisser said. “But for the Israelis who were evacuated from their homes, this is an all-out war, and the same goes for the Lebanese who were forced to leave their homes.”

An editorial in the Jerusalem Post congratulated any force “operating against the evil that is Hezbollah,” but also expressed concern about the impact on Israeli civilians in the north.

The newspaper wrote: “There is, however, one thing we must not forget: the residents of northern Israel are those who have been hit hardest by the war with Hezbollah and have suffered one blow after another.

“While this new advance gives Israel an advantage, it is undeniable: Hezbollah will strike back and northern Israel will suffer the consequences. To whoever masterminded yesterday’s cunning attack, well done – but always remember that broad repercussions are inevitable.”

In an analysis for the Haaretz newspaper, Amos Harel said the attack had exposed Hezbollah’s weakness and humiliated its leaders, but questioned whether the timing was appropriate.

“At a time when Netanyahu until recently promised the Israeli public that we were only a small step away from total victory over Hamas, it now appears that we are also closer than ever to a full-scale war with Hezbollah,” Harel wrote. “Victory, on all fronts, is still a long way off.”

Some opposition politicians accused Netanyahu of losing sight of the goals of the Gaza war. Former IDF deputy chief of staff and Democratic Party leader Yair Golan told Israeli Radio: “If Israel is indeed responsible for the pager attack, then this is a capability that should be used as part of an overall campaign, for example on the eve of a ground campaign.

“When such a capability is activated without any strategic context, it is a confusing move. At the same time, and I don’t know, it could be that there was a situation where there was no choice, a situation where they had to activate this tool immediately.”