Where is the Israeli narrative?
At The American Thinker, Greg Richards says that Israel's ambassador to the UN Danny Gillerman needs to proudly push the Israeli narrative of events in Lebanon: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.Read the whole thing.
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.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:31 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home