Why Israel’s Legitimacy Is Under Attack

Israel’s deteriorating international standing has become one of the defining geopolitical developments of the post–October 7 era. Across Europe, parts of the United States, and much of the Global South, public attitudes toward Israel have hardened considerably. A 2026 Pew Research Center survey of 36 countries found that majorities in most of the countries surveyed held unfavorable views of Israel.

The immediate causes are evident. Israel’s prolonged military campaigns in Gaza, the humanitarian consequences of the war, settlement expansion, and increasingly controversial statements by some members of its government have generated sustained international criticism. The International Court of Justice is also continuing to consider South Africa’s genocide case against Israel; as of September 2026, the proceedings remained ongoing.

Yet the depth of contemporary hostility raises a larger question. Why has the conflict produced such an intense and enduring challenge to Israel’s legitimacy in parts of the international community?

The answer lies partly in the war itself. But it also lies in forces that predate the current Israeli government and, in some cases, the creation of the state itself.

A Conflict That Produces Political Images

Israel occupies an unusually difficult position in the international politics of war.

For decades, it has confronted armed organizations on its borders and, more recently, direct attacks from Iran as well as threats from Hezbollah and other militant groups. Israel argues that its military campaigns are fundamentally defensive and necessary to prevent attacks on its population.

But the international perception of a war is rarely determined by strategic arguments alone.

Modern warfare in densely populated urban environments produces images of destruction that can overwhelm more abstract discussions about military necessity, intelligence, proportionality, or the conduct of combatants. Gaza has provided an especially powerful example of this dynamic.

Israel maintains that its forces have taken extensive measures to reduce civilian casualties and facilitate humanitarian assistance. Critics, however, argue that the scale of destruction and civilian suffering demonstrates that those measures have been inadequate. International organizations and governments have made serious allegations concerning Israel’s conduct, while Israel has rejected accusations of genocide and other wrongdoing. These competing claims remain at the center of the international debate.

The result is a conflict in which military necessity, humanitarian law, national survival, and civilian protection have become inseparable in the eyes of much of the world.

The Weight of Religious History

Another source of hostility lies deeper in history.

Judaism’s relationship with Christianity and Islam has never been politically or theologically neutral. Both traditions developed within a world shaped by Judaism, while also defining themselves in relation to Jewish religious claims.

Christianity’s long history included theological doctrines that contributed to anti-Jewish prejudice, while European societies repeatedly subjected Jewish communities to discrimination and persecution. The Holocaust eventually forced a profound reconsideration of those traditions, particularly in the West.

Islamic history is more complicated. Jewish communities occupied different positions across Muslim-majority societies and different historical periods, ranging from periods of relative tolerance to episodes of persecution and discrimination. Contemporary Islamist movements have nevertheless revived some forms of explicitly anti-Jewish rhetoric, while presenting opposition to Israel as part of a broader religious and political struggle.

None of this means that Christianity or Islam is inherently hostile to Jews or Israel. Nor does criticism of Israeli policy constitute antisemitism. But historical religious narratives can provide political conflicts with an emotional vocabulary that extends beyond contemporary policy disputes.

The persistence of antisemitism is not merely a historical concern. The European Commission’s 2026 survey of perceptions of antisemitism found that 55 percent of respondents across the European Union considered antisemitism a problem in their country, while 63 percent said Europeans were not well informed about Jewish history and culture.

Israel’s Legitimacy Is Also a Historical Argument

Zionism presents an unusual proposition in the history of nationalism: a dispersed people seeking to reconstitute political sovereignty in a territory with which it maintained an ancient historical connection.

For Jews, the argument is rooted in centuries of exile, persecution, religious attachment, and national identity. For many Palestinians, however, the establishment of Israel is inseparable from displacement, dispossession, and the destruction or transformation of Palestinian society during the 1948 war.

These narratives are not easily reconciled.

Outside the region, the Palestinian narrative has often proved more immediately intelligible within the political vocabulary of the contemporary West. A population describing itself as displaced or occupied fits readily into a broader postcolonial framework in which powerful states are presumed to bear particular responsibility for historical inequalities.

Israel’s historical argument is more complicated. It requires an understanding of Jewish history, the experience of European antisemitism, the Holocaust, the history of Zionism, the British Mandate, the Arab-Israeli wars, and the competing national claims that emerged in Palestine.

That complexity creates a persistent disadvantage in a political environment increasingly shaped by short-form media and simplified moral narratives.

The Return of Nationalism

Israel also finds itself increasingly out of step with parts of Western political culture.

For much of the postwar period, nationalism was treated with suspicion in Western Europe. European integration, multiculturalism, and the growth of transnational institutions encouraged a political identity that could extend beyond the traditional nation-state.

Israel represents almost the opposite proposition.

It is a state explicitly founded around Jewish national self-determination. Its national identity is deeply intertwined with language, historical memory, military service, immigration, religion, and territorial sovereignty.

For supporters of nationalism, this is an expression of a principle applied to the Jewish people. For critics on parts of the progressive left, however, nationalism is associated with exclusion, ethnic hierarchy, or territorial conflict.

This produces a structural ideological tension. Israel asks the international community to recognize Jewish national self-determination at precisely the moment when some Western intellectual currents have become more skeptical of nationalism itself.

The Transformation of the Western Left

The political left has also undergone a significant transformation in its relationship with Israel.

For decades, Israel enjoyed substantial support among Western social democrats and liberals, particularly because of its identification with parliamentary democracy, trade unions, secular institutions, and the broader Western camp during the Cold War.

That consensus has weakened.

Among younger progressives, Israel is increasingly viewed through the lenses of occupation, Palestinian rights, racial justice, colonialism, and international law. The Democratic Party in the United States has experienced its own internal debate over Israel, while European center-left parties have become more critical of Israeli policies.

The shift cannot be reduced to antisemitism. Much of it reflects genuine disagreement over Israeli policy and Palestinian rights.

But the two phenomena can coexist. Criticism of a government is one thing; arguments that deny Jews collective national rights or treat Israel as uniquely illegitimate are another. The challenge for Western democracies is to distinguish between the two without suppressing legitimate political criticism.

The Red-Green Alignment

One of the more consequential developments has been the convergence between parts of the Western left and Islamist political movements.

The alliance is not universal, nor is it necessarily based on agreement about religion or social values. It is often transactional, built around opposition to Israeli policy, Western military power, and what participants regard as entrenched systems of political and economic inequality.

Israel becomes a particularly important target because it sits at the intersection of several disputes: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, U.S. power in the Middle East, Western foreign policy, Islamism, and debates over colonialism and national self-determination.

This political convergence has been particularly visible in parts of Europe, where large Muslim populations have become increasingly important political constituencies.

The Changing Memory of the Holocaust

There is another factor that should not be underestimated: time.

The generation that experienced the Holocaust is disappearing. For younger generations, the Holocaust is increasingly an inherited historical memory rather than a lived experience.

That does not mean Holocaust remembrance is disappearing. But the emotional framework surrounding it is changing.

At the same time, antisemitism has adapted to new political environments. In some cases, traditional anti-Jewish conspiracy theories have been repackaged through anti-Zionist language. In others, Jews are held collectively responsible for Israeli government policy.

The danger lies in allowing legitimate arguments about Israel to become vehicles for older prejudices.

The contemporary rise in antisemitic incidents in Western societies illustrates why the distinction is important. A September 2026 report cited by Reuters found that antisemitic incidents at British universities had risen sharply since the October 7, 2023, attacks.

Israel’s Own Critics Complicate the Picture

Israel’s international predicament cannot, however, be explained entirely by external hostility.

Israeli society itself contains fierce disagreements about the country’s policies, its government, the war in Gaza, settlements, relations with Palestinians, and the future of the country’s democratic institutions.

Those disagreements are legitimate—and they are important to Israel’s international standing.

Opponents of Israeli policy frequently cite statements by Israeli politicians and activists, while organizations representing parts of the Jewish diaspora have themselves become critics of the Israeli government. Conversely, Israel’s defenders argue that some international campaigns appropriate Jewish voices selectively in order to lend greater legitimacy to an anti-Israel agenda.

The existence of Israeli and Jewish critics therefore proves neither side’s broader argument. It demonstrates instead how deeply contested Israel’s political direction has become.

The Limits of Public Diplomacy

Israel therefore faces a diplomatic problem that cannot be solved through messaging alone.

Its government can explain Israel’s security concerns. It can highlight the threat posed by Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and other armed groups. It can emphasize the country’s democratic institutions and the measures its military says it takes to protect civilians.

But public diplomacy cannot erase images of destruction, civilian casualties, or disputes over Israeli policy.

Nor can Israel expect historical arguments alone to reverse changing public attitudes.

The more difficult task is to persuade audiences that two propositions can coexist: Israel has a legitimate interest in protecting its citizens and maintaining Jewish national self-determination, while Palestinians also possess legitimate national and human rights.

That argument is harder than portraying the conflict as a simple struggle between good and evil. It is also more compatible with the diplomatic environment Israel must navigate.

A Battle Over Legitimacy

The central challenge confronting Israel is therefore larger than any single military campaign or government.

Some hostility toward Israel is clearly rooted in contemporary policy disagreements. Some is connected to the broader ideological transformation of Western politics. Some reflects genuine Palestinian grievances and opposition to the occupation. And some draws upon much older forms of antisemitism.

These forces should not be collapsed into a single category.

Israel’s international isolation is real, but its causes are neither uniform nor immutable. A recent assessment by the Jewish People Policy Institute similarly describes erosion in Israel’s international support alongside tensions involving the United States and diaspora Jewish communities.

The strategic question for Israel is consequently not simply how to defeat its enemies militarily. It is how to preserve the legitimacy of the Jewish state’s existence while addressing the policies and conduct that have contributed to its diplomatic isolation.

That requires more than public relations. It requires political choices, credible institutions, sustained alliances, and a foreign policy capable of explaining Israel’s security imperatives without dismissing the grievances of those affected by its actions.

Israel’s opponents will continue to challenge its legitimacy. Israel’s supporters will continue to argue that the country faces a uniquely hostile environment.

The more consequential question is whether Israel can persuade enough of the outside world that its security and national existence are compatible with a political order in which Palestinians also have rights, dignity, and a future.

That is ultimately the legitimacy contest Israel cannot afford to lose.