From the echoes of its precarious birth under invasion to the present challenges of battlefield intensity, international scrutiny, and internal dissent, Israel’s struggle is no longer confined to securing territory. It is about safeguarding its identity and ensuring that survival is matched by legitimacy on the world stage
In the long arc of Israel’s statehood, August 2025 stands as another crucible. The war in Gaza, once framed as an act of necessity, has hardened into a complex mix of battlefield intensity, democratic contestation, and external scrutiny. Beneath the artillery fire and diplomatic exchanges, Israel is grappling with a question less visible but more profound: the legitimacy of its very right to exist. Israel’s history provides a lens to understand the current moment.
In 1948, independence was declared in Tel Aviv under the looming threat of regional invasion. The new state, still absorbing refugees and lacking resources, was forced to defend its very right to exist against multiple Arab armies. The paradox of that moment remains instructive: a society fragile in numbers and means nevertheless prevailed militarily while simultaneously entrenching parliamentary institutions. For Palestinians, 1948 was remembered as rupture, displacement, and loss. Yet for Israel, it was the founding crucible of resilience — a demonstration that sovereignty would rest not merely on battlefield strength but also on building a functioning democratic polity.
Caroline Glick has argued that Israel’s founding experience continues to shape its approach today, linking its right to self-defense with its very existence. Einat Wilf emphasises that the conflict goes beyond borders, touching on the question of accepting Jewish sovereignty. Tzipi Livni notes that legitimacy relies not only on military strength but also on maintaining democratic institutions, even under severe threats. These perspectives illustrate how the challenges faced in 1948 still influence Israel’s present situation. On the southern front, the Israel Defense Forces’ advances into Rafah and Khan Yunis have unfolded with military precision. Yet every operation now takes place under real-time international observation. Each strike resonates beyond its immediate target; every civilian death becomes part of a wider narrative. The costs of war are measured not only in territory or security but also in reputation. Glick has long warned that Israel’s most acute struggle is not only with rockets or missiles but with the erosion of its legitimacy in international law. “Once you accept the premise that self-defense is illegitimate,” she has observed, “you’ve accepted the premise that the state itself is illegitimate.” Her words frame Jerusalem’s refusal to embrace international frameworks that appear to condition Israel’s security on moral approval. For Glick, the core struggle is not in Gaza or Lebanon but in the perception of Israel’s sovereignty itself. At home, the endurance of Israel’s institutions remains both its strongest assurance and its most fragile asset. Livni, one of the country’s most respected voices on democracy and governance, has cautioned against bending democratic norms under the stress of conflict: “The majority cannot decide tomorrow that there will be elections every ten years… there are limits.” Her reminder is clear: democratic resilience cannot be suspended even under existential threat. Weakening courts, freedoms, or accountability would concede more than any military reversal could impose. The tension between survival and democratic fidelity is visible not only in parliamentary debates but also in Israel’s public squares. In Tel Aviv, dissent remains visible — from protests over hostages to demonstrations against judicial reform. Even as Israel’s internal foundations are tested, its regional environment is shifting rapidly. Washington remains its indispensable ally, but US patience has been stretched under the weight of humanitarian alarms and mounting domestic political pressures. Republicans have rallied behind Israel with unqualified backing, while Democrats navigate a more complex landscape — balancing traditional support with rising progressive dissent. American Jewish communities reflect these divisions, with synagogues, civic forums, and university campuses becoming stages for fierce debates on the meaning of solidarity. For Israel, accustomed for decades to bipartisan reassurance, US domestic politics now shape the predictability of its most vital alliance.
Policy choices within Israel sharpen the question of permanence. Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich’s push to advance settlement construction in the E1 corridor east of Jerusalem — more than 3,000 units designed, in his words, to “bury the idea of a Palestinian state” — exemplifies this fault line. For supporters, such measures are an assertion of strategic clarity in the absence of a viable peace partner. For critics abroad, they risk deepening Israel’s isolation. Yet, as Einat Wilf has often emphasised, the core of the conflict is not geographical but existential. “For the Jews,” she has explained, “the essential point is the creation of a sovereign Jewish state. For the Arabs, it is to resist to the last the very existence of Jewish sovereignty.” In this analysis, territorial compromises alone cannot end the war; recognition remains the missing piece. The consequences of prolonged conflict are also playing out in Israel’s institutions of governance. The resignation of centrist figures from the emergency war cabinet has narrowed the Government’s margin for error. Victory in Gaza, should it be secured, cannot be considered separately from the preservation of Israel’s democratic core. Governance and strategy, in this crucible, are inseparable: one cannot endure without the other.
Economic strain compounds the challenge. Israel’s technology sector has long been its strategic engine, a source of global prestige and internal cohesion. Yet mobilisation costs, expanded war budgets, and uncertainty about post-war security have weighed on public finances. The shekel has wavered, and investment flows have slowed.
The economic question is not merely material but social: cohesion itself is tested when prosperity is fragile. Here too, the state’s resilience lies as much in maintaining confidence in its institutions as in securing its borders. History offers precedents of endurance. Israel has faced existential wars before — 1948, 1967, 1973 — and emerged intact. But this juncture is distinctive because multiple pressures converge simultaneously.
Diplomatic patience is narrowing, internal protests are sharpening, economic strain is visible, and the global narrative is more contested than at any point since the Second Intifada. What marks the present is not the intensity of one front but the acceleration of all. These voices highlight the stakes Israel faces. Some stress that challenging its right to self-defense is, in effect, questioning its very existence. Others note that military success alone cannot secure legitimacy without upholding democratic norms. A further perspective sees the conflict as fundamentally ideological, explaining why no territorial settlement has brought lasting peace. Taken together, these ideas underline the key challenges for Israel: defending sovereignty, maintaining democratic norms, managing internal dissent, and affirming national identity. They offer a guide for navigating the pressures of war, diplomacy, and public opinion. The humanitarian dimension of the war, particularly in Gaza, cannot be bracketed out. It is not simply a moral consideration but a strategic reality that shapes Israel’s ability to maintain international alliances and legitimacy. Yet framing this challenge as one imposed from outside misreads its nature.
For Israel, the humanitarian aspect of conflict is part of the strategic environment in which sovereignty itself must be secured. Recognition of that reality is not a concession but a calculation: legitimacy abroad influences the freedom to defend at home. Nina Slama, an expert on Israel’s political culture and India–Israel relations, says the conflict highlights both Israel’s anxieties and its regional resilience. She notes that while October 7 exposed security vulnerabilities, the war has not broken Israel’s pragmatic partnerships with Arab states seeking stability. Slama sees a similar trend in Israel’s ties with India, where defence and technology links have grown through shared security concerns.
At the same time, New Delhi emphasises restraint and dialogue, mindful of its historical solidarity with Palestine. For Israel, India represents an ally that strengthens resilience while reminding it that legitimacy depends on balancing force with responsibility. While the Iron Dome protects Israel on the battlefield, thinkers and analysts emphasise that sustaining the state also requires balancing security with democratic values, internal cohesion, and principled governance.
Israel today stands on the brink but remains unbowed. Its challenge is not only to endure but to emerge from this passage with its institutions, cohesion, and narrative intact. Listening to the insights of its thinkers can help guide its path.That measure — survival with legitimacy — will define whether this moment becomes another chapter in resilience or a turning point of deeper consequence.
The writer is an international relations scholar at JNU and a columnist