In the ever-evolving landscape of modern warfare, the terminology used to describe conflicts has a profound impact not only on the perception of the battles themselves, but also on the public’s expectations and willingness to support the war effort. The “war of consciousness” – a term usually used to describe the attempts of one side to influence the enemy – also impacts the home-base and has blurred the lines between warfare and perception, raising crucial questions about the terminology employed and the promises made by leaders to their own people. In this age of “new wars,” where decisive victories are rare, it is essential that we reevaluate the terminology used and align public expectations with the realities of contemporary warfare.
The current war, referred to as “Swords of Iron,” was immediately labeled a “war” due to its scale and devastating start. It was not a mere matter of semantics; the gravity of the situation imposed the term on Israel from the outset. The decision to label it as such resonated with the public, signifying that this was not another “cycle” or “operation.” In times of war that is not another “cycle,” the public anticipates casualties, long-lasting engagements, and sacrifices. The terminology implies a readiness to mobilize for the greater good. However, it also fosters an expectation of “victory.”
In the era of “war cycles” of the last few decades, the Israeli public learned that achieving a clear victory is not attainable. The notion of a “round” suggests an endless cycle of fighting with no decisive outcome, which leaves no room for “victory.” But the current war is framed as a different kind of war, reminiscent of earlier wars with tangible achievements. Furthermore, Israel’s leaders have consistently promised “victory” in their public statements, evoking the memory of earlier wars, where Israel achieved resounding military successes.
Israel expects victory on the level of the Six Day War
The public, influenced by leaders across the political spectrum, now expects military successes akin to those of the past, often referencing the War of Independence and even the Six Day War. Critics of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also promise “victory,” disagreeing only on whether his resignation should precede or follow this victory.
It is imperative that our leaders reconsider the terminology used to describe the conflict. While this war is distinct from previous rounds of fighting, we must acknowledge the complexity of achieving an unequivocal military victory. The reality is that although the circumstances surrounding this war differ significantly from those of the near past, its end will most probably not resemble a heroic victory of Israel’s “old wars,” especially due to the huge failure of its first day.
Ultimately, this focus on “victory” is not only a matter of terminology, but also a critical issue of substance. The way the public perceives the war profoundly influences its ability to endure, stay motivated, exhibit resilience, and contribute to the war effort. Leaders must ensure that public expectations align with attainable goals, striking a balance between inspiring mobilization and preventing disillusionment. A more honest and measured approach to terminology and promises will sustain the overwhelming national unity displayed since the beginning of the conflict, ensuring a stronger collective effort toward a resolution that aligns with the realities of the “war of consciousness.” Setting unrealistic expectations may undermine public trust in leadership and damage the willingness to commit to the national effort.
The writer is a senior lecturer in the Program in Conflict Research, Management, and Resolution at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.