Israel started the current war in Gaza with a level of global support that is hard to remember. World leaders competed among themselves to see who would arrive first for a sympathy visit, and how they would comfort the people of Israel. Convoys of diplomats made their way to what remained of the October 7 massacre scene in Bari. Leaders posed for pictures on the kibbutz paths with gloomy faces. The shock they expressed afterwards was true, deep and in solidarity. Some talked about the Holocaust. Some mentioned “the face of evil”. They promised “never again”.
● The opinion in Britain that could lead to an arms embargo on Israel
● “Iranian Jerusalem Day”: why is there a fear that Iran will attack precisely tomorrow?
This was not just talk. The US president diverted aircraft carriers to the region to protect Israel in a crisis. The European Union spoke of Israel’s duty to defend itself. Arms shipments made their way from Germany and Britain. The most senior EU representatives visited the south while Hamas rockets fell all around them. EU leaders They gathered and announced that Hamas has taken itself outside the limits of legitimacy, that it cannot be part of the government in Gaza in the future.
The Israeli military operation itself also received the green light. In European capitals sensitive to human rights, the large number of people killed in the bombings was ignored. Foreign governments have clarified for Israel that the collateral damage is due to Hamas using the population as a human shield. Between the lines was expressed the reliance on Israel, according to which it does everything to avoid harming innocents. Even when Israel was sued at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the Americans went out of their way to explain that war crimes are not being committed in Gaza, while the Germans promised to side with Israel and against the lawsuit in the legal process.
Even incidents in which entire buildings were bombed to “hunt down” one Hamas official did not change the picture. The support was solid, justified. It was not possible to find any gap between the policies of Germany and the USA, Israel’s two largest arms suppliers. The checks they gave to Israel were open. The fact that Israel has had a relatively broad government is different from the one that adopted a policy that divided the country up to 7 in October, helped calm international concerns and build a sense of trust.
But all this was true only for the first three months of the war. Towards the end of last year and the beginning of the new year, the picture changed. It did not happen all at once, as they feared ahead of time. The effect is cumulative. Part of it was due to the known reasons: the news flowing from Gaza took over the agenda, the justification for the war was buried in the past, the “News” eroded public opinion which eroded the politicians’ positions.
But this dynamic, which was much slower than the Israeli side had even hoped (already at the beginning of November, Israeli Foreign Minister at the time Eli Cohen estimated that Israel “only has two to three weeks” until a global call for a cease-fire), was also adversely affected by several Israeli measures.
the breaking point
The first significant point of friction was the absolute Israeli refusal to involve the Palestinian Authority in the future of the Strip, even vaguely, even in the future after unknown “reforms”. Netanyahu began making statements about this in mid-November, and repeated them in the following weeks in such a frequent and explicit manner that in European capitals and in Washington it was impossible to ignore or hide the differences of opinion.
If there was any breaking point, it was this: the stage when the international supporters began to suspect that they were being taken for a certain political spin. where it became clear to them that they were accepting Netanyahu’s version when it was reinforced by Ben Gvir Smotrich, and not Netanyahu of the two-state speech. Their open check was written in favor of some kind of unity government, but the prime minister broke to the right.
The trust placed on the Israeli side is cracked. Talks about a security zone, about long-standing security control and the denial of other options suddenly stood between the parties. What else changed the picture was the Israeli military shuffle in the Strip. As long as Israel advanced militarily and presented an orderly plan, the victims and the situation in the Strip had some justification, there was a hope. But at the same time as the political rhetoric worsened, the tangible goals also disappeared. Before that, the international authorities may have believed that the IDF had the power to topple Hamas. With the pause in the fighting, this perception changed.
Then the Rafih issue came up. Initially, it seemed that this was an Israeli threat for the purpose of negotiations only. Israel isolated Hamas together with the abductees and another million and a half refugees in a relatively small area, and it was time to discuss a comprehensive prisoner deal. At least that’s what they thought in the West. But from there, with a not entirely clear logic, the Israeli side inflated Rafih’s story more and more, turning it with his own mouth into a much more central point of contention than it should have been.
For nearly three months Israel has been threatening to invade Rafah. In these months, the global doubts and mistrust suddenly became public. Europe and the United States saw how the logic of war disappeared, how clear goals became dim, and in their place slogans such as “total victory” emerged, against the background of a deteriorating humanitarian situation. The result was that they began to directly accuse Israel of withholding humanitarian aid. They took out their political rage on The settlers, with entry bans and public statements. About two weeks ago, the revolution was complete. The European Union called for a humanitarian ceasefire. A few days later, the Security Council also adopted a harsher resolution.
The completion of the metamorphosis
Now the situation has changed. The dam was breached. The IDF’s successful operation at Shifa Hospital, no matter how many terrorists were arrested or killed there, was portrayed in the global media as an Israeli destruction of the health infrastructure of the Gaza Strip. The evidence is no longer changing. The electorate is gradually leaning against Israel, from the US to Germany. Comparative surveys show an erosion of support for Israel, towards a minority position. In most European countries, the number of supporters of the Palestinians following the war is two and three times greater than the number of supporters of Israel.
Now Israel is completing a metamorphosis from an ally to a possible threat to world peace. An arms embargo is imposed on it de facto by most European countries. Norway is leading a trend to divert investments in companies that aid the war. The Israeli abductees are still on the agenda, but mainly because of the media work of their families. In the “good” case, the narrative shifted from support for Israel to criticism of Netanyahu. In the “bad” case – a solidifying boycott of Israel and international isolation. Tragic mistakes like the killing of the foreign activists in the Gaza Strip this week divert entire publics to the camp critical of Israel.
The erosion of international support reaches its peak precisely at this sensitive point in time, in which Israel faces a possible new front in the north and the renewal of fighting in Gaza. Currently, Israel has burned its international credit. It was slower than expected, perhaps, but faster than it should be.
For your attention: The Globes system strives for a diverse, relevant and respectful discourse in accordance with the code of ethics that appears in the trust report according to which we operate. Expressions of violence, racism, incitement or any other inappropriate discourse are filtered out automatically and will not be published on the site.
