Israel’s war for survival is just beginning

Show summary Hide summary

• Why this war defied traditional victory definitions
• How history framed the October conflict
• Public opinion, media, and the rapid shift in Western sentiment
  • Mechanisms of the shift
• When anti-Zionism became a political and cultural identity
• Western governments, diplomatic isolation, and policy responses
• The cultural front: why Israel must respond beyond the battlefield
• What the next phase might look like

Israel’s struggle since the Hamas attacks of October 7, 2023 has reshaped not only a battlefield in Gaza but also the narratives circulating through Western capitals and campuses. As negotiators tout a new ceasefire, many questions remain: did the deal secure Israel’s safety, or did it merely buy a fragile pause that masks deeper vulnerabilities? The diplomatic and cultural fallout of this conflict may be as consequential as its military episodes.

Leaders in the region, including Egypt’s Abdel Fattah El-Sisi, have framed the agreement as a turning point and a possible path toward stability. Yet observers warn that hope does not guarantee durable peace, and that the war’s imprint on global politics and public opinion will persist whether guns fall silent or not.

Why this war defied traditional victory definitions

Unlike conventional wars between states, the confrontation with Hamas posed unique strategic and political puzzles. Israel faced a non-state actor embedded within civilian territory, not an opposing government that could surrender or sign conventional terms. That reality complicated what “victory” would look like.

• Hamas operates across borders and underground networks, allowing it to survive defeat in any single theater.
• Even a dismantling of Gaza-based infrastructure would not necessarily prevent the movement from reconstituting itself elsewhere.
• Military success could be temporary unless paired with political solutions that address Gaza’s governance and regional grievances.

Put simply, Israel could degrade Hamas’s immediate capabilities but not eradicate the political currents and regional conditions that enable its resurgence. The best attainable outcome in the near term may have been to reduce the group’s capacity to threaten Israel for a limited period.

How history framed the October conflict

The latest outbreak of violence is part of a long arc of confrontation tied to the birth of Israel and the eruptions that followed. From the UN vote in 1947 to the major interstate wars that shaped the region, the existential stakes for Israel have repeatedly been tested. The October attacks returned the conflict to its most primal question: the survival and security of a state whose legitimacy has been contested for generations.

Those historical roots help explain why responses have been so intense on all sides. Past wars were fought chiefly between national armies; this one has been fought across military, social, and informational domains.

Public opinion, media, and the rapid shift in Western sentiment

Within weeks of the October massacre, public discourse in much of the West tilted decisively. Pro-Palestinian activism, galvanized by social media and campus movements, grew into a broad cultural phenomenon that pressured governments and institutions to take positions. The speed and scale of the backlash against Israel surprised many strategists.

Mechanisms of the shift

• Social movements turned coordinated online narratives into mass protests in Western cities.
• University campuses amplified pro-Palestinian messaging among younger cohorts.
• Media coverage and activist campaigns framed the conflict in moral terms that resonated with anti-establishment currents.

The result: a powerful optics-driven contest in which perception often mattered more than battlefield facts. For many in the cultural elite, support for Palestine became a marker of progressive identity, reshaping political calculations in Europe and North America.

When anti-Zionism became a political and cultural identity

In the past two years, public expressions of anti-Zionism have migrated from fringe protests to mainstream cultural signifiers. Clothing, slogans, and symbolic gestures have been adopted by young people as shorthand for moral positioning. In some quarters, solidarity with Palestine functions as a broader critique of Western policy and values.

This shift has a worrying side: the blurred line between political critique of Israel and hostility toward Jewish people. Anti-Zionist rhetoric has, in some instances, provided cover for open anti-Semitic sentiment. What began as political opposition has sometimes morphed into a social movement that tolerates — or even normalizes — prejudice.

Western governments, diplomatic isolation, and policy responses

Pressure on Israel has not been limited to public demonstrations. States and institutions have implemented a variety of measures that together have increased Israel’s diplomatic isolation.

1. Sanctions, targeted restrictions, and institutional divestments have been used to signal disapproval.
2. Some countries moved toward recognizing Palestinian statehood or shifting diplomatic stances.
3. International bodies and NGOs stepped up condemnation and scrutiny of Israel’s military conduct.

These moves reflect a broader trend: many Western administrations have felt compelled to align with the predominant moral narrative emerging from media and street-level activism. The result is an Israel that finds fewer reliable diplomatic allies and more public censure than at any point in recent decades.

The cultural front: why Israel must respond beyond the battlefield

Military measures alone will not mend the reputational damage Israel has sustained. The conflict has become as much about ideas, identity, and legitimacy as about tactical successes or failures on the ground.

• Israel needs strategies to counter misinformation and shape narratives in global media.
• Engaging with foreign publics — especially younger demographics inclined toward activist causes — will be crucial.
• Diplomatic outreach must be paired with cultural diplomacy to rebuild trust and reduce isolation.

Preparing to fight on two fronts — the physical and the ideological — is now part of Israel’s strategic reality. The contest over hearts and minds in Western societies could determine long-term geopolitical support as much as any battlefield outcome.

What the next phase might look like

Even if the current ceasefire holds, the underlying tensions that fueled the war will remain. Regional actors, displaced militant networks, and unresolved political grievances in Gaza and the West Bank leave open multiple pathways to renewed violence. Meanwhile, the cultural currents that turned public opinion against Israel are likely to persist and evolve.

Addressing this environment will require a combination of security measures, diplomatic outreach, and efforts to counteract narratives that equate legitimate political critique with delegitimization of a nation or its people.

Frank Furedi is the executive director of the think tank MCC-Brussels.

You might also like:

• UN under fire: critics say it is rotten to the core
• Keir Starmer emboldens extremist groups, critics say
• Trump deals devastating blow to anti-Israel sentiment
• Iran war began Oct. 7, triggering regional escalation
• Andy Burnham facing backlash over pandering to anti-Israel groups