It’s Monday morning and my brother calls. The family is supposed to vacate for a few days in Haifa. Should they go? It’s Monday afternoon. My daughter decides to cancel a trip to Hadera, south of Haifa but north of where we live, and quite close to the most strategic of targets: the electric company. My wife is also worried. In a few days she is slated to travel to the other side of the world for a vacation of a lifetime. Will she be able to fly? Some flights of international carriers are already canceled, but El-Al operates normally. For now.   

This is what a war looks like, most of the time. There are intervals in which one can plan ahead with a decent degree of certainty. There are times in which one sits in a shelter, under fire. But most of the time it is just wait time. Waiting for the siren to wail, waiting for the cabinet to decide, waiting for the enemy to retaliate, waiting for a ceasefire to start. 

As you read this column, you know what happened: Was Haifa spared, could my wife fly, does the electric company still stand? But I write when all possibilities are still a potentiality, a looming danger, a worrying question mark. Last Saturday, Hezbollah fired a rocket at Israel, one of many thousands. Something we got used to treat as a nagging routine. But not this time. The rocket landed where teenaged boys were playing soccer. It killed a dozen and forced us all to shift to the familiar waiting mode. Until Israel retaliates, until Hezbollah decides how to respond to Israel’s retaliation, until Israel decides how to respond to Hezbollah’s response to the retaliation. Of course, none of it is going to bring those kids back. 

How should Israel respond when provoked in such way? Back in 2006, PM Ehud Olmert decided to go crazy following an attack by Hezbollah in which fewer Israelis were killed. He started a war, that dragged on for a while and ended in a whimper. Most Israelis felt that the decision was rushed. The military wasn’t prepared, the goals weren’t clear, the outcome was a disappointment. Then – after some years – Israelis changed their minds. The north was quiet and Olmert’s rush to war suddenly seemed to make sense. Then Oct. 7 happened, and again, the Second Lebanon War seems like a failure. It ended with Hezbollah still on Israel’s border. It ended in a way that Israelis are no longer willing to tolerate – a murderous terror organization they can see from their backyards. 

How should Israel respond when provoked in such way? PM Netanyahu knows that public opinion is like shifting sands. Jewish Israelis might feel today that a war with Hezbollah must be fought, either now, or when the fighting in Gaza subsides. But that’s because the public believes that Israel has the potential to win the war. It is because they envision a war that is tough, bloody, costly – and decisive. Netanyahu knows that such war is a rarity and that these days most wars aren’t decisive. Israel did not yet defeat Hamas, an organization much weaker than Hezbollah. Israel is exhausted, polarized, overstretched, apprehensive. Olmert was bold, and learned the hard way that the IDF could not meet his desired goals. Netanyahu is the opposite of bold and might learn the hard way that he has no path to avoiding war other than humiliation and defeat.

Israel did not yet defeat Hamas, an organization much weaker than Hezbollah. Israel is exhausted, polarized, overstretched, apprehensive. 

It isn’t easy writing a column on a Tuesday, when everything could change in just minutes, or hours, or days. It isn’t easy being an Israeli on a Tuesday, when everything could change in just minutes, or hours, or days. The irony is that at certain moments, the siren is a relief, a moment of clarity. When the siren wails, the future is clear. Put on a shirt, carefully descend the stairs, make sure your daughter is awake, get into the shelter, look around to see the whole family is there – dog included. Close the door.

Something I Wrote in Hebrew

The right question about Netanyahu’s speech is not whether the speech was good, or strong, or exciting. The question — the morning after question — is “Is your situation better today than it was yesterday, before the speech?” And to make it clearer: Has Israel’s situation improved after Netanyahu’s visit to the U.S.? This is a question that is aimed at the purpose, not the style, that is aimed at the outcome and not the opinion. Winston Churchill, who was overtaken by Netanyahu last week in the infantile “who spoke more before Congress” contest, is remembered because his great speeches had an effect, a result. He galvanized the British nation during a war. He nudged the Americans into action. Had he made great speeches, followed by defeat, he would not have been Churchill. Netanyahu isn’t like Churchill. He is – perhaps – more like Barack Obama. Like Obama, Netanyahu has a tendency to assume that his charismatic presence would change reality. This made Obama a Nobel Peace Prize laurate – but it was not enough for him to bring peace.

A Week’s Numbers

Between March and July, the share of Israelis preferring a diplomatic settlement in the north was on the rise. But that’s before the attack that killed the boys in Magdal Shams.

A Reader’s Response:

Shmuel Rosner is senior political editor. For more analysis of Israeli and international politics, visit Rosner’s Domain at jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain.