The world appears perfectly comfortable with Israel defending itself, provided that its defense never becomes effective enough to defeat the people attacking it.

That contradiction has become one of the strangest features of the international debate surrounding Israel. Israel is repeatedly told that it has the right to defend itself. Politicians make solemn statements about Israel’s security. Governments condemn terrorism and declare that Israeli civilians should not have to live under rockets, massacres, kidnappings or threats of annihilation.

But the moment Israel attempts to transform the abstract right of self defense into actual military results, the conversation changes.

Suddenly the question is not simply why Israel was attacked. The question becomes whether Israel’s response is too strong, whether the military operation should stop, whether international pressure should be increased and whether Israel should accept another ceasefire before the organization attacking it has actually lost the capability to attack again.

Israel is therefore confronted with an almost impossible expectation. It is expected to survive its wars, but increasingly it seems that it is not supposed to win them. That distinction matters.

A country does not defend its population merely by intercepting missiles. It does not solve terrorism simply by constructing better shelters. It cannot permanently answer massacres by developing faster warning systems. Defensive technology can save enormous numbers of lives, and Israel has demonstrated extraordinary innovation in protecting its population, but defense alone cannot eliminate the source of a continuing military threat.

Imagine applying that principle anywhere else. Would Europeans accept a neighboring armed organization deliberately firing rockets at Amsterdam, Paris, London or Berlin while openly announcing that it intended to continue? Would their governments be expected merely to intercept those rockets........

© The Times of Israel (Blogs)