We are in the midst of a war that began on Simchat Torah, October 7. As early as 10:32 a.m., the X network (formerly Twitter) posted: "The IDF Spokesperson now permits the publication of the name of the operation: 'Iron Swords.'"
In other words, in the very first hours of that terrible day, someone was already sitting in the offices of the report and pulled out (from the computer?) a name for the operation. It should be noted that at that time the results of the Hamas attack were still unknown, and the IDF called it an "operation" rather than a war, similar to previous "operations" against terrorists: Defensive Shield, Pillar of Defense, Cast Lead and Protective Edge – all names with meanings of durability and strength.
As soon as the Wikipedia article appeared, discussions began about changing the name of the war. Some want to name it after the day it opened, Shemini Atzeret or Simchat Torah - similar to the Yom Kippur War - and some prefer to mention the general date, October 7. Some suggest calling it the "Gaza War," while others say waiting until the end of the war and determining a name that will constitute a consensus in Israeli society. Perhaps in time the Israeli collective memory will remember it by a different name? Hamas also understands that the name gives meaning, and calls the war "Typhoon al-Aqsa," meaning the storm on its way to the holy site, a war for everything.
Names create consciousness. If we examine how the names of the wars in Israel were determined, we will see how correct this is. With the establishment of the State of Israel, the Arab armies invaded and began an offensive against the Yishuv. There are several names for this war: the War of Independence, the War of Independence, the War of Rebellion, and recently some call it the War of '48. The Arabs, as we know, call it the Nakba ("the catastrophe").
There is a clear difference between the names "War of Independence" and "War of '48". The first expresses the removal of the yoke of nations from us, the struggle for an independent Jewish state that did not exist for almost 2,000 years, and the second name expresses a technical date. The question is the righteousness of those who go to war, and how it will be assimilated into the collective memory.
If so, who decides the names of wars? It seems that the names that the IDF provides to the public sometimes remain deep in the consciousness (Protective Edge, for example), and sometimes the public, the media, and politicians assimilate other names
As far as the Arab side is concerned, the more the word "Nakba" is heard and the more legitimate it becomes, the more the public consciousness will take into account the "catastrophe" that occurred in 1948. In 1982, Israel launched Operation Peace for Galilee, which eventually became the Lebanon War. Here we can clearly see how the name change changes consciousness: from a war for the welfare of the Galilee to a war in Lebanon. The name changes the way we look at the event: a transition from a justified war for the benefit of the residents of the north to wallowing in the "Lebanese mud."
If so, who decides the names of wars? It seems that the names that the IDF provides to the public sometimes remain deep in the consciousness (Protective Edge, for example), and sometimes the public, the media, and politicians assimilate other names. Sometimes circumstances change according to the gap between the official name and the course of events, sometimes political perceptions gain traction among the public, and sometimes the name expresses a debate between perceptions in society.
The final name for iron swords that will be determined in consciousness is not yet known. In my view, it must express the great spirit of volunteerism among the people, the unanimity regarding the necessity of war, and the unity (perhaps for a moment) that is felt these days.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us