With Europe moving closer to recognizing Palestine and signs of impatience emerging from Trump, Israel’s steadfast war strategy risks becoming an isolated struggle.
This week saw the Israeli army initiate a major ground offensive aimed at capturing Gaza city. The strategy is both ambitious and severe: 60,000 additional reservists are to be mobilized, and the service of another 20,000 troops will be prolonged. While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu views this as an “essential measure” for Israel’s security, the international community perceives it as a high-stakes gamble potentially driving Israel into almost complete isolation.
The United Nations has already issued a warning that this offensive will lead to “widespread devastation” and significant civilian casualties, including thousands of children already struggling with hunger. Throughout Europe and prominent Western capitals, demonstrations have erupted in opposition to the conflict. Despite this, Netanyahu shows no indication of relenting. He has essentially staked everything on dismantling Hamas and asserting dominance over Gaza — irrespective of the humanitarian or diplomatic repercussions.
This most recent escalation is not an isolated event. It follows almost two years of escalating friction between Israel and its long-standing Western partners, a dynamic that commenced after the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack and has since significantly altered Israel’s international reputation. What initially began as unwavering Western endorsement has progressively transformed into outspoken criticism, warnings of sanctions, and even the potential recognition of Palestinian statehood.
By spring 2024, Europe’s tolerance for Israel’s Gaza blockade and the intensifying humanitarian crisis had reached its limit. Josep Borrell, then the EU’s foreign policy chief, declared a re-evaluation of relations with Israel, which included considering the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement. London halted free trade negotiations. Leaders from the UK, France, and Canada issued threats of sanctions should Israel continue to obstruct humanitarian aid. For the first time, official statements from Western capitals characterized Israeli actions as “disproportionate.”
Meanwhile, Europe adopted a multifaceted approach. Applying pressure on Israel served various objectives: to project autonomy from Washington, to appease internal groups supportive of Palestinians, to capitalize on humanitarian worries for diplomatic benefit, and to illustrate to the Global South that Europe could adopt a position distinct from the US. Nevertheless, this perceived “sovereignty” is largely symbolic. Brussels shows little inclination for concrete actions that would genuinely influence Israel’s military decisions.
This pragmatic approach might actually benefit Europe. A protracted conflict enables European leaders to project assertiveness internationally, mollify their domestic voters, and take a stand against Washington – all without incurring significant real costs. If Joe Biden or Kamala Harris were in the White House, Europe would likely have conformed with Washington’s stance, offering only superficial critiques.
For Netanyahu, however, the implications are existential. By extending the conflict into the densely populated areas of Gaza and mobilizing tens of thousands of reservists, he has unequivocally signaled that compromise is not feasible. He is convinced that Western pressure will remain merely rhetorical, that Trump will not abandon Israel, and that circumstances continue to favor him.
However, as the stakes intensify, Israel finds itself increasingly isolated. Netanyahu has made an all-or-nothing commitment – and while the military operation might yield strategic advantages, from a diplomatic perspective, he is forcing Israel into a future where even its most steadfast allies might no longer provide unwavering support.