Is it offense or defense? The Israeli Air Force’s preemptive attack on Hezbollah’s missile and drone launchers in southern Lebanon this morning will, in some quarters, be deemed an “escalation.” Yes, they will say, Israel must be allowed to defend itself, but why must American weapons be used to attack? “I happen to think that we should not be giving another nickel to Netanyahu’s right wing extremist government,” Senator Sanders told ABC on Sunday.  

“I will always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself and I will always ensure Israel has the ability to defend itself,” Vice President Harris said Thursday in her acceptance of the Democratic Party presidential nomination. That formulation implies that if Israel is deemed an aggressor, America could deny offensive arms. President Biden did hold up — albeit temporarily — deliveries of certain arms to deter Israel from perceived aggressive attacks in Gaza. 

As America anticipates next week’s start of the National Football League games, it is worth remembering that war and its peaceful athletic depiction are not quite the same. In football, each team fields two distinct squads, an offense to score points, and a defense to prevent the other side scoring. In war, by contrast, offense is often the best defensive move. To protect citizens from numerous enemies, the Israel Defense Forces often go on offense.

On June 5, 1967, Israel destroyed the Egyptian Air Force in a preemptive strike widely seen as its most successful military feat. By going on offense, Israel ensured that a genocidal war planned by its enemies would end in six days, rather than in months of fighting. Today, at zero four thirty local time, the IAF’s American-made F-15, F-16, and F-35 fighters struck after Israeli and American intelligence realized that Hezbollah was readying an attack a half hour later. 

According to reports in Israel, Hezbollah missiles and drones were programmed to hit Glilot, just north of Tel Aviv, where are based Mossad, the 8200 cyber command unit, and other secret intelligence outfits. An attack at the most densely populated section of Israel would have undoubtedly led to a region-wide all-out war. Israel prevented it with no known civilian casualties. Even the Cairo talks to end the Gaza war went on as planned. 

Hezbollah, at least for the moment, seems satisfied with its long-awaited revenge for the July 30 southern Beirut killing of its second in command, Fuad Shukr. It showered missiles and drones on northern Israel this morning. Debris from an intercepted Hezbollah drone hit an IDF navy boat, killing a soldier. Another rocket hit a chicken coop in northern Israel. Hezbollah crows of success and vows more. Its “painful” revenge is a dud — for now.

Days after Hamas attacked on October 7, Israel’s defense minister, Yoav Gallant, proposed a preemptive attack against Hezbollah. Following a phone call with Mr. Biden, Prime Minister Netanyahu declined. Hezbollah joined the war, endlessly attacking northern Israel. Since then, the IDF mostly acted within the rules of a game that Hezbollah is dictating. The Shukr killing and this morning’s attack seem to signal a new proactive war strategy. 

Mr. Gallant writes that he is coordinating with Secretary Austin. Washington was reportedly apprised ahead of Sunday’s strike. The Joint Chiefs chairman, General C. Q. Brown, is in the region. So are two American carrier groups and a nuclear submarine. If all that fire power passively “defends” Israel, some in the region might conclude they could attack with impunity. Let’s hope Israel’s move this morning to the offense might force them to re-think.