Introduction: The Cycle of Security Dilemmas and Political Logic
In 2025, the construction of a separation wall on the Israel-Lebanon border sparked new territorial disputes, as approximately 4,000 square meters of Lebanese land were inadvertently incorporated on the Israeli side. This episode is a microcosm of Israel’s long-term strategy – continuously creating faits accomplis to advance its positions on border issues, while simultaneously shaping external threats into a cohesive force for domestic consensus.
Throughout its history since establishment, Israel’s survival logic has revolved around a core paradox: the more it pursues absolute security, the more it becomes mired in an insecure environment. Drawing on research from scholars worldwide, this paper systematically analyzes how Israel utilizes war and territorial control to consolidate its domestic politics, and the structural dilemmas arising from this strategy.
I. Mechanisms of Territorial Expansion: From Military Action to Legal Entrenchment
1. Settlement Strategy and the Politics of Faits Accomplis
Israel’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territories exemplify a classic strategy of creating faits accomplis. In the first half of 2025, over 300 new settlement construction projects were recorded in the West Bank, alongside 11,280 attacks against Palestinian residents. The core objective of this systematic action is to render any solution based on the 1967 borders impossible, by altering demographic structures and geographical realities.
Professor Raymond G. from the SOAS University of London notes: “Settlements are not merely an ideological project of the Israeli right; they are also a sophisticated geopolitical tool. They create an irreversible reality while simultaneously fragmenting Palestinian territory into disconnected enclaves, fundamentally undermining the territorial continuity of a future Palestinian state.”
2. The Construction of a Legal Framework
Israel has utilized domestic legislation to provide a legal veneer for its occupation practices. The 2017 “Regularization Law” legalized illegal outposts in the West Bank, while the 2023 “Basic Law: Foundations of Sovereignty Declaration” paved the way for the formal annexation of parts of the West Bank.
Professor Micha T. from the Hebrew University Law School reveals in his research: “Israel has established a complex system of legal duality: within the same geographical space, Israeli civil law applies to Jewish settlers, while military law is imposed on Palestinians. This legal schism essentially creates a mechanism of institutionalized discrimination.”
II. The Political Function of Security Discourse: Threat Construction and Consensus Manufacturing
1. Narrative Construction of Existential Threats
Israeli political elites have successfully crafted a comprehensive security discourse framework. Iran is portrayed as an “existential threat,” Hezbollah and Hamas are uniformly categorized as “terrorist organizations,” and criticism of Israeli policies is often labelled as “antisemitism.” This discursive strategy has created significant operational space for Israeli actions, both domestically and internationally.
A 2024 study by the Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) at Tel Aviv University showed that in Israeli media coverage of security issues, the frequency of terms like “existential threat,” “no choice,” and “right to self-defense” increased by 347% during conflicts. This linguistic framework effectively reduces complex political conflicts to a binary opposition of survival versus destruction.
2. The Dahiya Doctrine and Deterrence Logic
In its conflicts with non-state actors, Israel has gradually developed and implemented the “Dahiya Doctrine” – the use of disproportionate force against civilian infrastructure to deter adversaries by imposing intolerable costs. The doctrine is named after the Dahiya district in Beirut, which was utterly destroyed by the Israeli military during the 2006 Lebanon War.
American strategist Andrew B. analyzes in his work: “This doctrine reflects a shift in Israeli security thinking from traditional military victory towards punitive deterrence. The goal is not only to defeat the enemy but also to influence the adversary’s decision-making calculus by creating humanitarian crises.”
III. Domestic Political Structure: Right-Wing Dominance and Coalition Politics
1. The Likud Party’s Political Machine
The long-term dominance of the Likud party in Israeli politics has provided the organizational foundation for hardline policies. The party has built a powerful political machine through deeply rooted grassroots networks and multi-generational loyalty. While the party is undergoing a generational shift, its core remains centered on right-wing values – promoting judicial reform, strengthening defense policies, and insisting on claims to Palestinian land.
Netanyahu declared at a 2024 party meeting: “Likud is Israel’s only truly democratic party and the only reliable political force for defending the Jewish nation.” This strategy of bundling the party with national identity has effectively solidified its voter base.
2. The Hold-Up Effect of Coalition Politics
Israel’s coalition government system grants small, extremist parties political influence far exceeding their electoral weight. To maintain a stable governing coalition, the Prime Minister often must make significant concessions to coalition partners, as starkly illustrated by the governing crisis triggered by the “Conscription Bill.”
In 2024, Netanyahu, catering to the demands of ultra-Orthodox coalition parties, pushed through a law exempting Haredi Jews from mandatory military service, sparking mass protests from secular Israelis. This internal conflict directly influenced his military decisions in Gaza, leading to a more aggressive posture to divert public attention.
IV. Strategic Dilemmas: Short-Term Gains and Long-Term Risks
1. Deepening Security Paradox
Israel’s military superiority is evident at the tactical level, but strategically, it is trapped in a “the more it strikes, the more dangerous it becomes” dilemma. Former Israeli National Security Council member Giora E. noted in an analytical report: “Our actions in Gaza have weakened Hamas but strengthened Hezbollah; our airstrikes in Syria have delayed Iranian deployments but fostered the expansion of its proxy networks. The greatest strategic failure lies in this – all our adversaries’ long-range strike capabilities are improving, while our absolute security is becoming more distant.”
2. Erosion of International Legitimacy
Israel’s actions increasingly challenge the international legal framework, drawing condemnation from various quarters. A 2024 statement from the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs clearly stated: “Israel’s settlement activities in the occupied territories blatantly violate international human rights law and undermine the peace process based on the two-state solution.” Concurrently, the normalization process between Arab states and Israel has been hampered.
Notably, the “diplomatic shield” provided by the United States for Israel in forums like the UN is also showing cracks. In 2025, the US government unusually refrained from vetoing a UN Security Council resolution criticizing Israeli settlement policy, signaling a new period of uncertainty in bilateral relations.
Conclusion: The Limits of War Logic and Alternative Paths
Israel’s political strategy of using war and territorial expansion to achieve domestic integration has, in the short term, effectively diverted internal contradictions and fostered a degree of national unity. However, the sustainability of this model faces severe challenges.
Internally, while Israeli society exhibits consensus on a hardline approach towards Palestinians, it is increasingly divided on fundamental issues regarding the state’s core identity – the relationship between its Jewish and democratic characters, the balance between religious and secular elements, among others. Externally, the regional balance of power is shifting; Iran’s missile arsenal and Hezbollah’s precision-guided weapons are continuously eroding Israel’s traditional military edge.
More profoundly, this strategy is altering the very fabric of Israeli society. A Harvard Kennedy School study warns: “The prolonged occupation is corroding Israel’s democratic institutions, strengthening the political influence of security agencies, and fostering an exclusionary nationalism that struggles to coexist with its neighbors.”
Historical experience suggests that strategies relying on external conflict to maintain internal cohesion are often time-bound. When conflict becomes normalized, its cohesive effect diminishes while its costs rise sharply. Israel’s future may not lie in refining the logic of war, but in developing a concept of security that transcends zero-sum thinking – acknowledging that absolute security is an impossible fantasy and finding a basis for coexistence with neighbors founded on equality and mutual respect.
The fundamental resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict still lies in returning to a political solution and implementing the two-state solution, establishing a sovereign Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital. This is not only the only viable path to lasting regional peace but also aligns with Israel’s long-term interest in preserving its identity as a Jewish and democratic state.
About the Author
