Israel today stands at a perilous historical crossroads. The gravity of its situation is not confined to the ongoing war in Gaza with its unprecedented devastation and the deaths of thousands of civilians but extends to the profound domestic and international repercussions far beyond the battlefield.
The current Israeli leadership under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has chosen a path that leads the world to perceive the war not as a struggle for the survival of the Jewish state, but rather as a struggle for the survival of its prime minister who wishes to evade prosecution and secure the support of the far-right elements within his coalition government.
This framing explains the glaring contradiction between Israel’s official insistence on achieving “total victory” in its war with Hamas and the political and military realities of the conflict, which reveal that the war no longer serves any attainable strategic purpose. Instead, it has devolved into a bloody quagmire, deepening Israel’s international isolation while fraying both its domestic social fabric and the cohesion of the wider Jewish diaspora.
As the US journalist Thomas Friedman argued in his New York Times column on 25 August this year, “Israel’s Gaza campaign is turning it into a pariah state.” Israeli society initially rallied behind the military response to Hamas’ 7 October 2023 attacks, galvanised by the shock of the unprecedented security breach.
Yet, as the war dragged on with no end in sight, questions mounted about its true objectives. Increasingly, Israelis sense that their individual and collective future has been mortgaged to a war bereft of realistic military goals. The majority would rather see it ended than prolonged under the illusion of “complete victory.”
Even former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett has warned of Israel’s eroding position in the United States, acknowledging that it is increasingly regarded as a “pariah state.” Retired Israeli General Amos Yadlin, a former head of the country’s military intelligence, underscored that “complete victory was never a realistic objective, nor a pathway to strategic success.”
Israel’s security doctrine traditionally relies on swift, decisive campaigns convertible into political achievements. Gaza is the antithesis of that. While Hamas’ infrastructure has been severely degraded and many of its senior commanders eliminated, the organisation’s operations persist, now focused on mid-level field leaders embedded among civilians.
Each Israeli strike thus extracts higher political and humanitarian costs than the military gains it produces. The bombardment of hospitals, such as the attack near the Nasser Hospital in southern Gaza that killed dozens of people, including journalists and medics, has epitomised this dynamic. Official Israeli statements of “regret” for “collateral damage” no longer persuade; the world sees them as rhetorical cover for civilian suffering.
What Netanyahu characterises as “tragic incidents” are in reality the predictable consequences of prolonging the war for political survival. His reliance on extremist coalition partners such as Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, advocates of settlement expansion in the West Bank and proponents of Palestinian displacement, ensures that the war serves not merely to counter a temporary security threat, but also to reshape the demographic and political landscape of historic Palestine.
Such a strategy strips away Israel’s moral veneer and makes it appear intent on territorial expansion from the West Bank into Gaza, rather than the neutralisation of Hamas. This perception explains the dramatic erosion of its international standing, even among its closest allies.
GROWING ISOLATION: The Atlantic Council in the US recently concluded in an analysis titled “Israel’s Gaza City operation will leave it more isolated. It’s time for a course correction” that Israel is experiencing an unprecedented decline in American public support.
Surveys done by the Pew public opinion company now show that 53 per cent of Americans hold negative views of Israel, compared with 42 per cent just two years ago.
Among Democrats, the criticism is overwhelming (69 per cent negative), but notably even half of young Republicans now view Israel unfavourably, signalling the collapse of once bipartisan support in the US. This erosion mirrors the partisan fractures that have emerged over Ukraine, and similar debates are now surfacing over Israel.
Some prominent Republican lawmakers have even described the war as “genocide,” while younger evangelical activists express far less attachment to Israel than their parents’ generation. Should this trajectory continue, the US-Israeli alliance will not retain its historic character.
The global landscape is bleaker still. Pew data reveal no major country in Europe, Asia, or the Americas where Israel commands majority popular support. Traditional allies such as Britain, France, Canada, and Australia are moving towards recognition of a Palestinian state in a strategic sea change that was unimaginable a few years ago.
Even Germany, Israel’s staunchest military patron, has suspended arms sales. This dramatic downturn reflects not only moral outrage at the humanitarian toll of the war but also a growing conviction that Israel lacks any credible vision for the post-war order.
Externally, Israel faces isolation; internally, it confronts dangerous fragmentation. Its society is deeply divided between those who insist on fighting until “victory” and those, including political, civil, and even military voices, who argue that the war has lost all strategic meaning and must end.
This rupture extends to Jewish communities abroad. In the United States and Europe, synagogues have become arenas of bitter debate: some see support for Israel as a religious and historical duty, while others believe Netanyahu’s policies jeopardise not only Israel’s legitimacy but also the image and security of Jews worldwide.
Increasingly, Jews fear speaking Hebrew or disclosing their identity abroad, fearing hostility. From discrimination cases in France to protests blocking Israeli tourists in Greece and the open condemnation of Netanyahu by Australian ministers, the signs point to a dramatic shift in Israel’s transformation from a supported state to a shunned one.
The world is asking why Israel persists in appearing to punish Gaza’s entire population rather than solely targeting Hamas. Why does it categorically reject any post-war role for the Palestinian Authority (PA), suggesting that its true aim is the consolidation of its control over Gaza? These questions underpin the surge of international anger, as the war comes to be viewed less as self-defence and more as the perpetuation of occupation.
Israel has long claimed moral superiority over its adversaries. Today, that claim rings hollow. The world distinguishes between a war fought for national survival and one fought for the political survival of a prime minister. When tens of thousands of civilians are killed, millions displaced into catastrophic humanitarian conditions, and all political alternatives rejected, it is no longer possible to dismiss such realities as “collateral damage.” Hence the accelerating collapse of Israel’s moral and strategic legitimacy even among its most loyal allies.
The danger Israel now faces is nothing less than geopolitical suicide. By isolating itself, it creates opportunities for adversaries to expand their influence, whether through broader recognition of Palestine or by exploiting Israel’s diminishing global reputation. At home, the war tears at the fabric of society, with mass protests reflecting deep disillusionment: hundreds of thousands of Israelis believe their government is not delivering security but leading them towards long term disaster.
If Israel is to correct course, it must recognise that seizing Gaza or fragments of it will not secure any strategic objective but will instead multiply its human and political costs. The alternative is to engage international partners in devising a new governance framework for Gaza that includes Palestinians themselves and to reinvest in its soft power – its technological, agricultural, and medical assets – as the basis for restoring trust.
That, in turn, requires abandoning the politics of occupation and expansion and returning to a credible two-state framework. If, however, the current leadership persists on its present path, Israel will find itself increasingly isolated, ostracised, and internally fractured, sacrificed to short-term political expediency at the expense of long-term security.
What is unfolding in Gaza, therefore, is not solely a humanitarian tragedy for the Palestinians but also a strategic tragedy for Israel itself. A state that aspired to be part of the West, a democratic model in the Middle East, and a regional power of consequence is instead descending rapidly into pariah status, shunned by publics worldwide, avoided by leaders, and leaving its citizens fearful of disclosing their identity abroad.
Israel’s trajectory is not merely military or political self-destruction, but moral as well. And the longer the war endures, the greater the costs and the deeper the wounds that may remain unhealed for generations to come.
The writer is a senator and former assistant to the foreign minister.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 11 September, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: