Religious and Political Implications of Israeli War Nomenclature

While wars throughout history often bear distinctive names or are associated with specific dates, the systematic naming of wars and military operations is a relatively modern practice. Israel has engaged in this practice since 1948, and with the multitude of its wars and military operations, various factors can explain how Israel names its wars and military efforts.

Historical Introduction:

American international relations scholar Peter W. Singer noted that up until the twentieth century, there were several trends in naming historical wars. The most common method was naming wars after the locations they erupted in, like the Crimean War (1853-1856) and the Korean War (1950-1953). Some wars were named after the warring parties, such as the Spanish-American War (1898) and the Russo-Japanese War (1904-1905). Wars were also sometimes named after one side of the conflict, often carrying a distinctive name, like the Mau Mau Uprising (1952-1956) or the Boer War (1899-1902).

Another prominent trend in naming historical wars relates to their start dates, as seen in the War of 1812 between the United States and Britain, as well as the Yom Kippur War of October 1973 (known as the “Yom Kippur War” in Israel). Some wars were named based on their duration, such as the Hundred Years’ War (1337-1453) and the Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648), while others were given symbolic names reflecting particular aspects of the war or its phases, like the War of the Oranges (1801) or the Banana Wars (1898-1934).

Interestingly, some war names have changed over time; for instance, World War I (1914-1918) was initially referred to as the “Great War” between the two world wars. After the outbreak of World War II (1939-1945), it became known as the first in a series of global conflicts.

As wars evolved in the twentieth century, countries and warring parties began systematically naming wars and military battles, whether it was at the outset of battles, during conflicts, or in later stages after their conclusion. American officer Gregory C. Siminski detailed this in his study “The Art of Naming Operations,” published in 1995 in the U.S. Army journal (Parameters). He noted that the practice of naming battles began with the German army in World War I as a means of distinguishing between successive operations and ensuring operational security.

During World War II, as battlefronts expanded and the number of military operations increased significantly, there was a greater need to distinguish between battles and military operations. Consequently, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff and the War Department established a “Secret Code Name Index,” providing ten thousand descriptive names to label battles and operations while avoiding proper names of geographic locations and ships.

Winston Churchill, the British Prime Minister during World War II, was also fascinated by symbolic names for battles. After encountering several names he deemed inappropriate, he even instructed one of his aides to present all future symbolic names to him for approval. Churchill believed that operations resulting in significant loss of life should not be described with names that convey pride or excessive confidence, nor should they evoke despair or triviality. He named the D-Day invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944, “Operation Overlord,” having initially considered other titles like “Heavy Hammer” and “Round Hammer.”

The next development in this trend came from American General Douglas MacArthur, who led U.S. forces during the Korean War. He was the first military leader to allow the names of secret operations to be made public in the press as soon as operations commenced, instead of waiting until after the war’s conclusion. This was intended to boost the morale of his troops and influence the enemy’s perception of the conflict. In 1975, the U.S. Army created a computer system to facilitate the selection and coordination of military operation names, called the NICKA system. However, at times American leaders ignored system recommendations, opting for different names for their military operations. For example, the U.S. operation in Panama in 1989 was initially to be called “Blue Spoon,” but it was ultimately changed to “Just Cause.”

In general, it can be said that four main principles emerged in the twentieth century organizing the naming of wars and military battles. The first is the emphasis on ensuring that the name has a strong, clear meaning that establishes the narrative of the party adopting that name. The second principle relates to defining the target audience for the naming, which sometimes leads to symbolic names for wars that differ from their media labels, as well as variations in the names when translated from one language to another. This phenomenon is often evident in Israeli practice, such as the name given to the Gaza War in July 2014, called “Protective Edge” in English, though it was “الجرف الصامد” in Hebrew and Arabic. The third principle emphasizes avoiding name styles that may enjoy temporary popularity and thus lose momentum over time. This connects to the fourth principle, which focuses on making the name of the war memorable.

Israeli Debate:

The “Psychological Warfare Unit” of the Israeli army is responsible for choosing the name assigned to any military operation, with variations based on the nature of the operation and the time frame set by political and military leadership. In some historical cases, political leaders contributed to naming wars, particularly those named retrospectively after their conclusion.

Military operation names are often generated either through an electronic system similar to the aforementioned American one or by military personnel within the Israeli army. In July 2014, during the Gaza War, which was named “Protective Edge” by Israel, Avichai Adraee, head of the Arab media section of the Israeli army’s spokesperson unit, stated that “operation names are selected through the computer and sometimes by individuals,” noting that the army examines the appropriateness of the name with respect to Israeli and international public opinion during the naming process.

In the early days of the Gaza war in October 2023, referred to by Israel as “Iron Swords,” reports indicated that a former spokesperson for the Israeli army, Daniel HaGari, chose this name from a group of names previously generated by the army. Former army spokesperson Ron Kochav, who held the position from 2021 to 2023, claimed he devised the name before leaving his post in April 2023, that is before the war began; however, he pointed out that this name seemed more suitable for a limited military operation lasting two or three days, rather than a prolonged war. He felt that the name was “pulled from the wrong drawer.”

Kochav’s comments regarding “Iron Swords” merely initiated a lengthy debate about the name, a historical controversy that often arises with each significant war in Israel. In December 2023, reports suggested that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was dissatisfied with the official name the army had assigned to the Gaza war, deeming it “inappropriate and insufficient for a military operation,” and advocated for changing it to “War of Formation.” In October 2024, one year after the Gaza war began, Netanyahu reiterated his desire to rename it, suggesting a new title of “War of Revival – Tekuma.” However, opposition from some ministers to this name and the military’s and public’s reluctance to discuss the matter prevented any change to the name of the war.

Netanyahu justified his desire to rename the war by claiming it was an “existential war” deserving of a better title, while some viewed Netanyahu’s actions as an attempt to carefully craft the legacy he would leave. Discussing an existential war might lead future Israelis to overlook the strategic and military failures experienced by the country on October 7, and Netanyahu considered renaming it a vital step in this regard.

Historically, naming wars in Israel has been a contentious process, with this debate beginning during the 1948 war, known in Arab terms as “Nakba” and in Israeli terms as the “War of Independence.” Years after this war, Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion referred to it as “the uprising war” or “the awakening war,” yet the term “War of Independence” ultimately remained the historically stable name in Israel.

The most significant debate, in which Israeli society participated, emerged during the First Lebanon War in 1982. This war was opposed by large segments of Israeli society, and historians viewed it as the first war for offensive colonial purposes, rather than a defensive war like its predecessors. To counter this notion, the Israeli government at the time named the war “Peace for Galilee,” believing that it would be brief, yet the Israeli public rejected this name, contesting the logic and reasoning behind the war itself. So much so that families of some Israeli officers who died during the conflict inscribed on their graves that they fell in the “Lebanon War” and not “Peace for Galilee.”

This debate continued until the outbreak of the Second Lebanon War in July 2006. During this conflict, the army referred to its operations as “Just Reward” and “Turning Point,” yet seven months after its conclusion, a ministerial committee for rituals and symbols, appointed by then-Defense Minister Amir Peretz, assessed the sentiments of the media and public. Based on its report, the Israeli army officially adopted the title “Second Lebanon War,” acknowledging that the 1982 war was indeed “the First Lebanon War.”

During the Gaza war that broke out in July 2014, many Israeli media outlets rejected the official name “Protective Edge,” opting instead for “Gaza War.” This shift occurred in light of the significant and unexpected losses the Israeli army suffered at that time, which appeared disproportionate to the war’s title, from the perspective of public opinion in Tel Aviv.

Israeli Implications:

Analyzing the names of Israel’s wars and military operations since 1948 reveals four primary implications behind these names:

Prevalence of Religious Dimension: Religious symbolism is a fundamental component of the political and military reality in Israel today, escalating with the growing presence of religious individuals in political life. War names have not been immune to this symbolism; historically, they are its most significant embodiment. Israeli researcher Dalia Gavrieli Nouri states that “nearly half of Israel’s military operations throughout its history have biblical roots.”

These religious names are studied carefully before being publicized and are crafted to motivate Israeli soldiers in their military tasks. The name “Six-Day War” in 1967 carries a biblical resonance related to the six days of creation. Israel has insisted on referring to the October 1973 war as the “Yom Kippur War,” indicating that Israel was attacked on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar.

Recently, Israel named the Gaza war in 2012 “Pillar of Cloud,” a title with a biblical reference. Furthermore, the name “Spear of Bashan,” given to Israel’s military operation in Syria in December 2024, is inspired by the Bible and refers to the region located in southern Syria.

Symbolic and National Implications: Renowned Jewish writer Philologus, in an article on the “Mosaic” website, notes that Israelis tend to reject symbolic military names but adopt them in limited operations. For instance, in August 2022, the Israeli army titled its operation against “Islamic Jihad” in Gaza “Honest Dawn,” suggesting that “the dawn brought by the Israeli army would overshadow the dark flags of the Palestinian factions,” according to their statement. Similarly, the military operation against Lebanon in 2024 was named “Northern Arrows,” a name denoting a limited operation, given that arrows are launched from a distance, particularly toward Hezbollah.

Concurrently, the Israeli army sometimes adopts names for its military operations that express national sentiments; for example, the Gaza War (December 2008 – January 2009) was named “Cast Lead,” derived from a poem by Jewish poet Hayim Nahman Bialik (1873-1934), which children sing during the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah, describing a traditional game of “Dreidel” made from cast lead. The Israeli operation coincided with Hanukkah celebrations in December 2008.

The name for “Guardian of the Walls,” which launched in May 2021, is taken from the title of an old Hebrew song written from the perspective of an Israeli soldier “recalling his memories and dreams of being a guardian of the ancient walls of Jerusalem.” Finally, “Iron Dome,” the name given to the Israeli army’s operation in the West Bank in January 2025, is inspired by the term “iron wall,” coined by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the founder and leader of the Zionist Revisionist movement in 1923, which spoke about the necessity of implementing the Zionist project behind a wall of iron that Arab local populations could not demolish.

Countering Palestinian Narratives and Names: In a study published in November 2024 in the journal “Perspectives on Global Development and Technology,” researchers concluded that Palestinian factions have skillfully crafted names for their military operations within a specific linguistic strategy to influence Arab and international perceptions of the war and garner support for their activities. The study indicates that these names are meticulously designed to convey specific messages and expand the meaning of their military capacities. In contrast, Israel focuses on countering Palestinian names with opposing ones, not only to refute the Palestinian narrative but also to instill fear in the Palestinian populace.

For this reason, we see “Cast Lead” (December 2008 – January 2009) countering the Palestinian name “Battle of the Furqan,” “Pillar of Cloud” (November 2012) against “Stones of Sijil,” “Protective Edge” (July 2014) opposing “Consumed by the Storm,” “Guardian of the Walls” (May 2021) battling “Sword of Jerusalem,” “Honest Dawn” (August 2022) against “Unity of the Arenas,” and finally “Iron Swords” (October 2023) juxtaposed with “Flood of Al-Aqsa.”

Constructing a Unique Israeli Narrative: Israel recognizes that success in wars and operations does not solely depend on military strength and tactical maneuvers, but also on how the opposition perceives its power and the rationale behind its actions. Thus, through the names of its wars and military operations, Israel attempts to influence the psychological and cognitive factors in facing parties. In the June 1967 war, alongside the biblical echo of the name “Six-Day War,” it represented, from Israel’s perspective, successful military achievement in accomplishing the war’s objectives in just six days. Similarly, Israel sought to justify its war in Lebanon in 1982, especially domestically, by naming it “Peace for Galilee,” to deny any notion of aggression on its part. In 2002, when Israel named its significant military operation in the West Bank “Protective Shield,” it aimed to emphasize its desire to regain control of major population centers in the West Bank to neutralize Palestinian factions there.

In summary, the naming of Israeli wars and military operations since 1948 carries religious, symbolic, and national traditions. With the increasing number of these operations and their proliferation in various media, alongside the recently sparked debate regarding the title “Iron Swords,” we may witness future distinctions in the procedures for naming wars, perhaps leading political leadership in Tel Aviv to take a more significant role in selecting those names and promoting its own narrative.