The making of Israel’s retreat into isolation

The primary justification for the creation of Israel was that Europeans of Jewish origin persecuted and ghettoised, deserve their own state where they can live like other “normal” nations. For much of its history, Israel sought to escape the isolation that marked Jewish existence in Europe before the creation of the Jewish state. One of its goals was to transform Israel from a besieged regional outlier into an increasingly accepted member of the West Asian political order, a goal made very difficult if not impossible because of the expulsion of almost two-thirds of the Palestinian population from the territory that became Israel. However, through peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan, quiet understandings with Gulf monarchies, and ultimately the Abraham Accords, Israel appeared to have broken out of its strategic ghetto.

A war’s global fallout

Now, Israel seems determined to reverse that achievement. Through the unrestrained exercise of military power in Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran, and through its relentless expansion of settlements in the West Bank, it is steadily recreating the very isolation from which it once sought to escape. The result is a country that is militarily stronger than ever but politically more isolated than at any time in recent decades.

The principal cause of this growing isolation is the belief among Israel’s current leadership that military superiority can substitute for political strategy. The devastation of Gaza has become the defining symbol of this approach. What began as a response to the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023, evolved into a campaign that much of the world views as collective punishment on a massive scale. Images of destroyed neighbourhoods, displaced populations, and mounting civilian casualties have profoundly altered global perceptions of Israel.

Israel’s actions in Iran and Lebanon have reinforced this trend. The repeated resort to military force beyond its borders reflects a doctrine that prioritises immediate tactical gains over long-term strategic consequences. While Israel has demonstrated impressive military capabilities, its attacks have also intensified regional instability and generated resentment among states that are forced to absorb the political and economic consequences of escalating conflict.

This is particularly evident in the Gulf. The Abraham Accords were founded on a convergence of interests among Israel and several Arab states. Economic cooperation, technological exchange and a shared security concern about Iran created a basis for normalisation. But the success of the Accords depended on an implicit assumption that Israel would act with sufficient restraint to make continued cooperation politically sustainable for Arab governments.

That assumption has been severely undermined. The destruction of Gaza and the ethnic cleansing of much of its population has generated enormous anger across Arab societies. Israel’s attacks on Iran have further complicated matters by exposing Gulf states to risks that they never sought. These states may share concerns about Iranian influence, but they do not wish to become collateral victims of Israeli military adventures. The result is a growing gap between the strategic calculations of Gulf rulers and Israeli priorities.

An alliance under strain

The deterioration of Israel’s relationship with the United States is even more significant. Washington increasingly finds itself paying the diplomatic and economic costs of Israeli actions while exercising limited influence over Israeli decision-making.

Recent tensions surrounding the U.S.-Iran memorandum illustrate this dynamic. Reports of sharp exchanges between Washington and Jerusalem over the agreement culminated in United States Vice-President J.D. Vance’s unusually blunt rebuke of Israeli criticism. “Donald J. Trump is the only head of state in the entire world who is sympathetic to the nation of Israel at this moment in time,” Mr. Vance declared, adding that if he were a member of the Israeli cabinet, he might not be attacking “the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world”.

The significance of the remark lay not merely in its criticism of the Benjamin Netanyahu government but in its clear acknowledgment of Israel’s international isolation. The dispute is not merely about Iran. It reflects a deeper concern within the U.S. administration that Israeli policies are complicating broader American strategic objectives in West Asia. The widening daylight between the two allies does not mean that the partnership is ending, but it does indicate that unconditional American support can no longer be taken for granted.

The return of isolation

Perhaps the most self-defeating aspect of Israel’s current trajectory is its policy in the West Bank. Settlement expansion has accelerated to the point where the territorial basis for a viable Palestinian state has disappeared. Simultaneously, attacks by Jewish settlers against Palestinian communities have become increasingly frequent. Reports that such actions often occur with the protection or acquiescence of elements within the Israeli security forces have further eroded Israel’s international legitimacy.

By making a two-state solution impossible, Israel is replacing a political problem with a permanent system of domination that much of the world finds morally and politically reprehensible.

History offers a striking irony. Zionism sought to ensure that the Jewish people would never again live isolated behind walls of fear and hostility as they did in Europe. But contemporary Israeli policies risk producing a modern version of that condition. The difference is that this isolation is no longer imposed; it is self-inflicted.

Mohammed Ayoob is University Distinguished Professor Emeritus of International Relations, Michigan State University, and the author most recently of From Regional Security to Global IR (2024)