On September 15, 2025, two scenes unfolded simultaneously in the Middle East, forming the most ironic geopolitical allegory of our time. In one scene, Israeli Defense Forces tanks crushed through the ruins of Gaza City, warplanes executed 37 strikes within 20 minutes, and attack helicopters circled persistently overhead. The other scene was captured in a conference hall in Doha, Qatar—representatives from dozens of Arab and Islamic nations urgently gathered. The summit communiqué, with rare consensus, called on the international community to review and push for the suspension of Israel’s membership in the United Nations. On the same day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at the center of the storm, was forced to publicly admit that Israel faced an increasingly severe state of “economic isolation.”
The thunderous military advance and unprecedented diplomatic loneliness are so paradoxically intertwined, precisely outlining Israel’s predicament today. Its assertive actions in recent years, especially since the outbreak of the new round of Israeli-Palestinian conflict, superficially aim to consolidate security through force and expand living space. In essence, however, they resemble a meticulous project of self-consumption—Israel is personally digging a “grave” for itself, mired in a military quagmire, diplomatic siege, economic distress, and internal divisions. This process is not due to a single factor but is the inevitable result of the combined forces of its radical military adventurism, disregard for international law and allies’ admonitions, and the coercion of domestic far-right politics.
I. The Dual Variation of the Military “Stimulant” and the Strategic “Quagmire”
At the tactical level, Israel’s war machine appears to be operating at an unprecedented intensity, attempting to achieve its proclaimed strategic goal of “completely crushing Hamas.” Since the security cabinet approved the action plan codenamed “Gideon’s Chariot 2” in August, the Israeli military’s siege and clearance operations in Gaza City have escalated. On the evening of September 15, the large-scale ground offensive officially began. By September 21, the Israeli army’s 36th Division further entered Gaza City proper, marking a continuous expansion of the operational scope. The Netanyahu government has set five ambitious principles for this operation: disarm Hamas, secure the release of detainees, demilitarize Gaza, maintain Israeli security control over Gaza, and establish an alternative civilian administration that is neither Hamas nor the Palestinian Authority.
However, this military high tide is rapidly transforming into a heavy strategic burden.
First, a vast chasm exists between achieving military objectives and realizing political visions. The Israeli military estimates that approximately 600,000 civilians remain in Gaza City without evacuation. Conducting high-intensity urban warfare in such population density means each step of the military operation comes with immense humanitarian costs and risks under international law. The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the Arab League, and even Western allies like Germany have condemned Israel’s actions as potentially constituting “ethnic cleansing,” “genocide,” or serious violations of international law. This not only fails to “destroy Hamas” but, on the contrary, continuously injects pathos and legitimacy into the resistance narrative globally, particularly among the Global South and younger generations.
Second, military adventurism has stimulated the linkage and escalation of regional resistance fronts. As analysts have pointed out, Israel is currently engaged in a multi-front confrontation with Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and Iran in the background. A full-scale assault on Gaza may force these forces to take more drastic retaliatory actions, dragging Israel into a broader, more draining, long-term war of attrition. Israeli Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi reportedly warned Netanyahu that a full occupation of Gaza could “create a trap in Gaza.” This internal military concern precisely reveals the profound contradiction between the decision-makers’ military recklessness and strategic prudence.
II. The Descent of the Diplomatic “Iron Curtain” and the Return of the “Two-State Solution”
If military action has created physical ruins in Gaza, then Israel’s foreign policy has constructed an increasingly solid “wall of isolation” for itself on the global stage. This isolation stems not from traditional adversaries but from its core circle of allies and community of shared values, potentially unprecedented in breadth and depth in Israel’s history.
First, the “wave of defection” among traditional Western allies. In July 2025, foreign ministers from over 20 countries, including the UK, France, Canada, Australia, and Japan, issued a joint statement demanding Israel immediately end the war and comply with international law. The Israeli Foreign Ministry rudely dismissed this as “detached from reality,” but it did not stop the trend. By September, the UK, Canada, Australia, and Portugal had formally recognized the State of Palestine. Netanyahu denounced this as a “reward for terrorism,” but its symbolic impact was immense: it signaled a structural crack in the long-standing “Western consensus” that served as Israel’s diplomatic moat. Germany, a special partner due to historical WWII debt, also announced a suspension of military equipment exports to Israel that could be used in Gaza. Its shifting stance is widely watched.
Second, collective pressure from the international multilateral system. Criticism of Israel within the UN system has become increasingly harsh and specific. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk explicitly stated that Israel’s plan to take over Gaza contradicts International Court of Justice rulings and the “two-state solution.” More gravely, the Arab-Islamic world at the Doha summit called for coordinated action to suspend Israel’s UN membership. While procedurally facing a US veto, the motion itself represents a major vote of no confidence in the legitimacy of Israel’s state conduct by the international community.
Third, the deepening hostility of key regional states. Major regional players like Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, and Jordan have condemned Israel’s military plans in the strongest terms, viewing them as direct violations of Palestinian national rights and territorial integrity. They unanimously emphasize the “two-state solution” as the only way forward. This shatters Israel’s fantasy of managing post-war Gaza through so-called “Arab forces,” leaving its post-war arrangements in a vacuum with nowhere to land.
The root of this diplomatic avalanche lies in the Israeli government misreading US support as an “infinitely overdrawn credit card.” Indeed, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s visit was seen as a “green light” for escalated Israeli military action, and US diplomatic protection in forums like the Security Council remains. However, as analysis suggests, US indulgence of Israel is more a calculation of alliance utility under an “America First” framework than unconditional endorsement. When Israel’s actions severely damage America’s global moral image and disrupt its Middle East strategic balance, the inherent tension in this support becomes apparent. Netanyahu, responding to the wave of recognitions of Palestine, notably stressed he would formulate a specific response only “after his return from the United States.” This precisely exposes the fragility of its diplomatic autonomy and deep dependence on a single pillar.
III. The Emergence of an “Economic Island” and the Widening of Internal Rifts
Diplomatic isolation is swiftly translating into tangible economic pressure, which in turn exacerbates domestic political and social divisions, creating another vicious cycle.
The “economic isolation” Netanyahu admitted to is transitioning from warning to reality. Beyond Germany’s suspension of some arms sales, the EU, Belgium, Portugal, and others have criticized Israel severely, not ruling out follow-up sanctions. International investment may hesitate due to ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) risks, and trade may suffer due to ethical consumerism and political pressure. Netanyahu’s proposal that Israel “must become more self-reliant” and “manufacture its own weapons” reads more like a confession of a siege mentality than a viable economic strategy. A modern high-tech economy is built on global supply chains and cooperation; attempting economic “self-sufficiency” is tantamount to self-demotion and chronic suffocation.
Economic hardship and prolonged war are tearing Israeli society apart with unprecedented force.
-
Division within the Political Elite: Chief of Staff Halevi, for questioning the full occupation plan, faced fierce criticism from Netanyahu’s inner circle and far-right allies like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir. The public rift between the military and radical political leadership indicates a loss of consensus within the state apparatus on the fundamental question of “how to end the war.”
-
Profound Societal Polarization: Groups representing the families of detainees publicly protested, accusing the government of “sentencing the living hostages to death,” and held sustained demonstrations demanding an end to the war. Simultaneously, far-right forces call for annexing the West Bank. Public debate over Netanyahu’s legacy and the nation’s future direction rages, with social consensus evaporating.
-
The Long-term Nightmare of Humanitarian and Security Issues: Israeli officials themselves worry that the military may be unable to provide basic sustenance for Gaza’s civilian population long-term, potentially leading to the extreme scenario of “hundreds of thousands of unarmed Gazans marching toward the Israeli border.” This foreshadows that military victory would be followed by an even more intractable security and humanitarian nightmare.
Conclusion: The Dusk of Hegemonic Logic and the Inevitable Adjustment
Taking a comprehensive view, Israel’s current predicament is the inevitable consequence of its long-term reliance on absolute military superiority and unconditional US support, adhering to a unilateral hegemonic logic of “solving everything by force.” It mistakenly equates temporary military-technological advantage with a lasting political solution and misinterprets allies’ strategic support as moral endorsement for its expansionist actions. Its behavior has devastated Gaza in the short term but, in the long run, has drastically reshaped the regional and international environment to its detriment: It has reawakened the dormant international consensus on the “two-state solution,” fostered strategic unity within the Islamic world, eroded the domestic public opinion foundation of Western allies, and ultimately rebounded the economic and security costs onto itself.
History has repeatedly shown that no nation can maintain security built upon the oppression of another people solely through force for long. The Netanyahu government currently chooses to respond to international pressure with even tougher stances—such as threatening to annex the West Bank and escalating military operations—which is tantamount to continuing to dig deeper into an already profound pit. The real way out may lie in whether visionary political forces can emerge, daring to break free from the political coercion of the domestic far-right, acknowledge the legitimate rights of the Palestinian nation, and return to the path of political negotiation based on the “two-state solution.” Otherwise, the “grave” Israel is digging with its own hands will bury not just the political life of one government but the very foundation of the nation’s future security and prosperity.
About the Author
