Where is the Israeli narrative?

I watched snippets of Israeli delegate Dan Gillerman making his case in the UN Security Council debate. To my dismay, he stayed within the context of the UN narrative: start with the status quo ante, take account of the terrorists' demands, and such baggage.

Israel should know that it is leaving its friends with little ground to stand on by taking this line. It is leaving us with the impression that it hopes some international force will take over the role of deterrence from it. This would mean that for the first time in its history, the IDF would not be the protector of the security of the state.

It is a mystery to me why Israel is eschewing the vocabulary of war.  Israel's story is very simple:

We were attacked.

Because of that attack, a state of war exists between Israel and Hizbullah.

Our policy in war is victory.  How long will the war last?  Until victory is achieved. 

By avoiding the narrative of war and the policy of victory, Israel puts itself on the ground that the international community prefers — how many more bombs will it drop; how big will any new offensive be; how long will the war last, always put in the form of how long will Israel continue attacking civilians in Lebanon.

If Israel has indeed lost its capacity for victory, then we will all have to adjust. The British had to adjust to the loss of the French will to victory in 1940.  The U.S. is capable of making this adjustment, but Israel's friends are bewildered at having to contemplate it.

The missile attacks by Hizbullah have, it is reported, either put 1 million Israelis in air raid shelters or forced them to move to other parts of the country.  In the U.S., the equivalent number would be 50 million people displaced by hostile attack.  This would be more than the combined populations of the three West Coast states.  Would the U.S. think it was a satisfactory state of affairs if California, Oregon and Washington had to be evacuated due to enemy activity and that our policy would then be to follow whatever the bureaucrats at the UN decided?

Greg Richards    8 09 06

I watched snippets of Israeli delegate Dan Gillerman making his case in the UN Security Council debate. To my dismay, he stayed within the context of the UN narrative: start with the status quo ante, take account of the terrorists' demands, and such baggage.

Israel should know that it is leaving its friends with little ground to stand on by taking this line. It is leaving us with the impression that it hopes some international force will take over the role of deterrence from it. This would mean that for the first time in its history, the IDF would not be the protector of the security of the state.

It is a mystery to me why Israel is eschewing the vocabulary of war.  Israel's story is very simple:

We were attacked.

Because of that attack, a state of war exists between Israel and Hizbullah.

Our policy in war is victory.  How long will the war last?  Until victory is achieved. 

By avoiding the narrative of war and the policy of victory, Israel puts itself on the ground that the international community prefers — how many more bombs will it drop; how big will any new offensive be; how long will the war last, always put in the form of how long will Israel continue attacking civilians in Lebanon.

If Israel has indeed lost its capacity for victory, then we will all have to adjust. The British had to adjust to the loss of the French will to victory in 1940.  The U.S. is capable of making this adjustment, but Israel's friends are bewildered at having to contemplate it.

The missile attacks by Hizbullah have, it is reported, either put 1 million Israelis in air raid shelters or forced them to move to other parts of the country.  In the U.S., the equivalent number would be 50 million people displaced by hostile attack.  This would be more than the combined populations of the three West Coast states.  Would the U.S. think it was a satisfactory state of affairs if California, Oregon and Washington had to be evacuated due to enemy activity and that our policy would then be to follow whatever the bureaucrats at the UN decided?

Greg Richards    8 09 06